linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened Device Tree.

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, 5 Jan 2016 17:06:17 -0800
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
Cc:	Bryan Freed <bfreed@...omium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olofj@...gle.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened
 Device Tree.

[fixing devicetree mailing list]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> [thread necromancy, if you don't have the thread locally, it's here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1426261/]
>
> We still need to solve this, and John pinged me about it today. Where
> does this stand?
>
> -Kees
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Bryan Freed wrote:
>> [...]
>>> And as a more general question, why should we try not to put
>>> configuration in the device tree?  It seems like a great (and
>>> portable) place to put this stuff.
>>> It certainly seems better to have it there than hardwired in the
>>> kernel or tacked onto the kernel command line.
>>
>> But then we have two in-kernel APIs to pass kernel parameters? So we'll
>> have to maintain two ways of passing the options for each driver. That is
>> hardly a good solution.
>>
>> If you would like to see a convenient way to pass kernel/module options
>> via the device tree, I would suggest implementing something like this:
>>
>> chosen {
>>         kernel-options {
>>                 linux,pstore.record-size = 123;
>>                 linux,foo = "bar";
>>         };
>> };
>>
>> And then let the kernel translate all these to module_param_*().
>>
>> I am still not sure about placing the options along with devices layout,
>> but if we go this route, then that is also viable:
>>
>> pstore-node {
>>         linux,pstore.record-size = 123;
>> };
>>
>> And translate "linux,*" this to module_param_*().
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anton
>
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS & Brillo Security



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
--
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/