On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:15:08PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > The reason for me doing that is because we (including you) agreed at > > the discussion held during LCU13 that this was the safest way of > > preventing "mischief" like userland trying to read information from > > /proc/device-tree... > > I'm not the most consistent of people. I often change my mind and then > have no recollection of ever thinking differently.
And that is fine, but you were not the only person agreeing. > Userland reading from /proc/device-tree isn't so much a problem, but > kernel drivers doing it might be. > > But, regardless of whether or not the stub clears out the memory > nodes, it is still I think good practice for the kernel to make the > decision to ignore memory nodes, and not rely on them being cleared > correctly. I also remember you saying that relaxing restrictions later on is a lot easier than tightening them. On that basis, can we please get the UEFI set merged before we start redefining the stub/kernel protocol which was agreed at LCU (November last year) after spending a month or two trying to get sufficient number of interested parties in the same room? / Leif -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/