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  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:	Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:31:03 +1000
From:	David Gibson <>
To:	Stephen Warren <>
Cc:	Olof Johansson <>, Jon Loeliger <>,
	Frank Rowand <>,
	Tomasz Figa <>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Marek Szyprowski <>,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Grant Likely <>,
	Stephen Warren <>
Subject: Re: [dtc RFC PATCH] Enforce node name unit-address presence/absence

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:02:20PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 02:41 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Warren <> wrote:
> >> From: Stephen Warren <>
> >>
> >> ePAPR 1.1 section "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any
> >> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name
> >> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if
> >> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a
> >> unit address.
> >>
> >> Implement a check for this. The code doesn't validate the format of the
> >> unit address; ePAPR implies this may vary from binding to binding, so
> >> I'm not sure that it's possible to validate the value itself.
> ...
> > Anyway, I think it'd be better to produce warnings than errors for
> > this. That way we could also merge it now while the trees are fixed
> > up.
> Yes, that makes sense.
> > Also, maybe warn for @0x<foo>, which is another unpreferred syntax, it
> > should just be @<foo> (with foo being in hex).
> ePAPR doesn't seem to disallow that; it explicitly says that the
> unit-address consists of the characters from table 2-1, which is the
> same table of characters used for the node name itself. However, it does
> state that the binding for a particular bus may impose additional
> restrictions; should I implement such a check but limit it to the root
> node or specific known bus types? That would require explicitly
> whitelisting the check for a lot of bus types, given that each I2C/...
> controller binding is a bus type...

Yeah, I think that's the wrong approach.  Instead I think we need a
table of bus type -> unit address validation functions.  That way we
can start with the common ones - plain memory address, PCI, USB and
I2C, then add more as we need them.

I actually started implementing this once, but I seem to have lost the

One thing to bear in mind if you do have a crack at this - the correct
encoding of reg -> unit address isn't always unique, although it
usually is.

David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists