linux-kernel - Re: "memory" binding issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:28:44 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
CC:	frowand.list@...il.com, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: "memory" binding issues

On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
>>>> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
>>>> nodes should be named.
>>>
>>> 2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to reflect reg.
>>>
>>> 2.2.3 says that unit addresses can be omitted.
>>
>> 2.2.3 is talking about path names.
>>
>> 2.2.1.1 is talking about node names.
>>
>> 2.2.1.1 _does_ require the unit address in the node name, 2.2.3 does not
>> remove that requirement.
> 
> Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.
> 
> I guess people prefer to follow ePAPR even though it's broken? That
> means someone needs to cleanup the current dts files. Any takers?

FWIW, I investigated enhancing dtc to enforce this rule. Here are the
results:

********** TEST SUMMARY
*     Total testcases:	1446
*                PASS:	1252
*                FAIL:	58
*   Bad configuration:	136
* Strange test result:	0
**********

That's just in dtc itself, and not any of the *.dts in the kernel or
U-Boot source trees...

I'll see how much of patch it takes to fix up all the test-cases in dtc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/