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:	Tue, 27 May 2014 13:12:36 +0100
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
Cc:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
	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 Mon, 26 May 2014 16:42:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 03:36 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing
> >> all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When
> >> kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd want the exact same behaviour from
> >> the kexec'ed kernel. That means we want the device drivers to do the
> >> same thing including loading whatever overlays they depend on.
> >>
> >> If the flattened tree was left applied, then the behaviour becomes
> >> different.
> >>
> >> I say always remove the overlays unless explicitly told not to, but I'm
> >> struggling to come up with use cases where keeping them applied is
> >> desirable.
> >
> > I would assume, that I want them applied in most cases. DT describes
> > the hardware. If I kexec into a new kernel I change software, not
> > hardware.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing the main purpose of the feature. I currently see
> > two useful usecases for DT overlays:
> >
> > 1. The dtb the kernel is booted with cannot be changed for some
> >     reason, but the board has additional hardware attached (e.g.
> >     the user added a sensor on the i2c bus)
> > 2. The hardware is changed on the fly (e.g. the user flashed the
> >     FPGA part of a zynq processor), sensors on i2c bus, ...
> >
> > In both cases the kernel should be booted with the additional
> > overlay information IMHO. Though for the second case it should
> > be possible to remove the "programmed" hardware information
> > somehow.
> >
> 
> 3. Some hot-plug device or card is inserted or removed.
> 
> I would argue that the kernel should _not_ be booted with the overlay in place.
> Otherwise the code handling overlays would have to have special handling
> for the restart case, which is much more complex than just to re-insert
> the overlay when it is determined that the device or card is still there.

Exactly.

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/