linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.

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: <A6195DFD-0447-4444-AC09-501C43F09924@konsulko.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2014 14:55:37 +0300
From:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	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>,
	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
	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" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pete Popov <pete.popov@...sulko.com>,
	Dan Malek <dan.malek@...sulko.com>,
	Georgi Vlaev <georgi.vlaev@...sulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.

Hi Grant,

On May 26, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Grant Likely wrote:

> On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:57:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>> 
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Grant Likely
>> <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:38:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Why has the overlay system been designed for plugging and unpluging whole
>>>>>> overlays?
>>>>>> That means the kernel has to remember the full stack, causing issues with
>>>>>> e.g. kexec.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mostly so that drivers don't see any difference in the livetree data
>>>>> structure. It also means that userspace sees a single representation of
>>>>> the hardware at any given time.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I don't follow the argument about the "single representation of the
>>>> hardware".
>>> 
>>> Er, s/of the hardware/of the tree/. Right now the overlay design
>>> modifies the live tree which at the same time modifies the tree
>>> representation in /sys/firmware/devicetree. If the design was changed to
>>> keep the overlay logically separate, then I would think we want to
>>> expose that information to usespace also. In fact, I think we would need
>>> to for usecases like kexec.
>> 
>> OK, so it does modify the real tree, and doesn't keep the actual overlays.
>> 
>> I was under the impression the overlay stack was also kept in memory, to allow
>> reversal, so there was a misunderstanding.
>> 
>> Hence for kexec, the tree in /sys/firmware/devicetree can just be passed
>> to the new kernel, as that's the current representation of the hardware?
> 
> Heeheehee. We're back where we started. The original question is whether
> or not that is a valid approach. If the overlay represents something
> that can be hot plugged/unplugged, then passing it through to the second
> kernel would be the wrong thing to do. If it was a permenant addition,
> then it probably doesn't need to be removed.
> 
> We do actually keep the overlay info in memory for the purpose of
> removal exactly so we can support hot unbinding of devices and drivers
> that make use of overlays.
> 

We can support either method. I am not feeling any wiser about which one should be
the default TBH, so what about exporting a property and let the platform 
figure out which is more appropriate?

> g.
> 

Regards

-- Pantelis

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
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/