linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.

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:	Tue, 27 May 2014 01:00:01 +0200
From:	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
	Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@...net.de>,
	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
	Michael Stickel <ms@...able.de>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
	Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pete Popov <pete.popov@...sulko.com>,
	Dan Malek <dan.malek@...sulko.com>,
	Georgi Vlaev <georgi.vlaev@...sulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.

Hi,

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:14:08AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> >>On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >>>Heeheehee. We're back where we started. The original question is whether
> >>>or not that is a valid approach. If the overlay represents something
> >>>that can be hot plugged/unplugged, then passing it through to the second
> >>>kernel would be the wrong thing to do. If it was a permenant addition,
> >>>then it probably doesn't need to be removed.
> >>>
> >>>We do actually keep the overlay info in memory for the purpose of
> >>>removal exactly so we can support hot unbinding of devices and drivers
> >>>that make use of overlays.
> >>
> >>We can support either method. I am not feeling any wiser about which one should be
> >>the default TBH, so what about exporting a property and let the platform
> >>figure out which is more appropriate?
> >
> >What about supporting "negative" overlays (so an overlay, that
> >removes DT entries)? That way one could reverse apply an overlay.
> >All the dependency stuff would basically be the users problem.  The
> >kernel only checks if it can apply an overlay (and return some error
> >code if it can't). This this code is needed anyway to check the
> >input from userspace.
> >
> 
> Does that mean that I would need to describe such a negative overlay
> for each overlay to be able to get it removed ?
> 
> This would introduce an endless source of problems with bad "reverse"
> overlay descriptions. Sure, that would "be the users problem",
> but I don't think that would make it better.

I was thinking about supporting something like "patch --reverse". So
you can try to undo the overlay by reverse applying it and you can
do it in arbitrary order.

Note: The dependency check must be done for all overlays coming from
userspace, so that's not a problem __here__. The reverse method can
"simply" reverse the overlay patch and apply it like a normal
overlay from userspace (and thus using the same dependency checks).

-- Sebastian

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)