linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHv3 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=XGNdLq4=cp3iv++rg=yXUVsp4mjcW7CVuQZUV@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:50:36 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv3 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 18:47, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:58:05PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 13:14, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> > +/* We'll allow OTP devices to be named otpa-otpz. */
>> > +#define MAX_OTP_DEVICES                26
>>
>> mmm is that still true ?
>
> I think so - the actual devices should be otpa-otpz, but when you
> register regions they could be otpa1, otpa2, otpb1, otpb2 etc.
>
>>
>> > +static unsigned long registered_otp_map[BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_OTP_DEVICES)];
>> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(otp_register_mutex);
>>
>> do we really need this ?  if we let the minor number dictate
>> availability, then we can increment until that errors/wraps, and we
>> dont need to do any tracking ...
>
> OK, so it would be nice to get rid of this but afaict we still need to
> do some accounting of available minor numbers in the range that we've
> allocated.  We could do a simple increment % 255 for the minor number
> but if OTP devices are removed at runtime then that may get fragmented
> and we would need to do retries of device_register() which feels a bit
> too easy to mess up.
>
> Certainly allocating one major number for OTP devices then allocating
> the minors one by one would be much better than what I have now.
>
> We probably also want it so that if you remove the OTP device that has
> had regions called otpaN then reinsert it they doesn't suddenly become
> otpbN.

yeah that's true.  guess i'll leave it be then ;).

whatever naming is picked in /dev/ should match the stuff in /sys/ btw ...
-mike
--
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/