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]

Date:	Mon, 26 May 2014 08:14:08 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...g0.de>,
	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
CC:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	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>,
	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.

On 05/26/2014 08:09 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:55:37PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> 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:
>>> 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?
>
> What about supporting "negative" overlays (so an overlay, that
> removes DT entries)? That way one could reverse apply an overlay.
> All the dependency stuff would basically be the users problem.  The
> kernel only checks if it can apply an overlay (and return some error
> code if it can't). This this code is needed anyway to check the
> input from userspace.
>

Does that mean that I would need to describe such a negative overlay
for each overlay to be able to get it removed ?

This would introduce an endless source of problems with bad "reverse"
overlay descriptions. Sure, that would "be the users problem",
but I don't think that would make it better.

Guenter

--
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/