linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: add Device Tree for the Armada 385 RD board

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: <20140307144457.GC18707@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2014 09:44:57 -0500
From:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To:	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: add Device Tree for the Armada 385 RD board

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:53:42AM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 06/03/2014 20:17, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > On Mar 06, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>> Can't we fix this so the probe order doesn't affect the name?
> >>>
> >>> Is that sane?
> >>
> >> You are not supposed to trust the device name, since probing can
> >> happen in parallel, on different buses. udev should have rules to name
> >> the interfaces based on the MAC address. On my Debian system i have:
> >>
> >> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> >>
> >> So what is important is that the MAC addresses are assigned correctly
> >> to the device. And DT does that based on MMIO address, so should be
> >> reliable, independent of probe order.

errr... I've always viewed the udev rules for persistent naming as a
hacky work-around.  If we have an opportunity to present consistent
names to userspace, then we should do that.  Otherwise, why would
devicetree have the ability to assign aliases?

> I was aware of this solution, and indeed for the end user it is the thing
> to do.

If we're broken, then yes.  Once we fix it, then the udev rules would
just confirm that the naming is the same from the previous boot.

thx,

Jason.
--
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/