linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] of: Add generic handling for ePAPR 1.1 fail-sss states

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:49:55 -0400
From:   Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>
To:     Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] of: Add generic handling for ePAPR 1.1 fail-sss states

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:46:23PM +0200, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> On 12 September 2016 at 15:35, Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com> wrote:
> > What do you mean by "you can't put it to good use" ?  Is that the case
> > of stuff that's say exposed via a header and could be used but isn't (ie
> > the cape/hat/chip/etc case) or the IP block is still OK but just not
> > exposed at all?
> >
> > What we're trying to address here is the case of "don't even try to
> > use the peripheral, bad things will happen.  But please properly idle
> > the IP block!".
> 
> I'm pretty sure IP blocks in the "don't even try" category are
> necessarily idled. There's no reason they wouldn't be.

OK.  But this is specifically about the blocks that we are being told by
the vendor are _not_ idled and need to be.

-- 
Tom