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:	Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:24:58 -0400
From:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
To:	Bryan Freed <bfreed@...omium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.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 <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened
 Device Tree.

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
--
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/