linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach

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: <20131111160533.07E8BC42303@trevor.secretlab.ca>
Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:05:32 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>
Cc:	Gerhard Sittig <gsi@...x.de>, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
	Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@...net.de>, Michael Stickel <ms@...able.de>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
	Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> 
> > Hello Pantelis,
> > 
> > On 05/11/13 21:03, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> >>>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> >>>> @@ -1641,6 +1641,7 @@ int of_attach_node(struct device_node *np)
> >>>> 	np->allnext = of_allnodes;
> >>>> 	np->parent->child = np;
> >>>> 	of_allnodes = np;
> >>>> +	of_node_clear_flag(np, OF_DETACHED);
> >>>> 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
> >>>> 
> >>>> 	of_add_proc_dt_entry(np);
> >>> 
> >>> Does this add a call to a routine which only gets introduced in a
> >>> subsequent patch (2/5)?  If so, it would break builds during the
> >>> series, and thus would hinder bisection.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> You're right, I'll re-order on the next series.
> > 
> > Is it necessary at all now, after these fixes:
> > 9e401275 of: fdt: fix memory initialization for expanded DT
> > 0640332e of: Fix missing memory initialization on FDT unflattening
> > 92d31610 of/fdt: Remove duplicate memory clearing on FDT unflattening
>
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
> Since at that point the tree is attached.
> 
> Grant?

In one sense it is a little odd because it isn't something that any of
the existing users (of which there are 2) would be affected by. It isn't
a bad idea though. Merged patches 2 & 1.

g.


--
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/