linux-kernel - nvram and generic_nvram modules are problematic, was Re: [PATCH] arch: m68k: mac: misc.c: Remove some unused functions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502011230150.32582@nippy.intranet>
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 2015 14:39:42 +1100 (AEDT)
From:	Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc:	Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
	linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: nvram and generic_nvram modules are problematic, was Re: [PATCH]
 arch: m68k: mac: misc.c: Remove some unused functions

On Sun, 4 Jan 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> > > Removes some functions that are not used anywhere:
> > > mac_pram_write() mac_pram_read()
> >
> > ... I'd rather not remove all of this code. Better to finish the 
> > implementation.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > Would it be acceptable to utilize drivers/char/generic_nvram.c and 
> > CONFIG_GENERIC_NVRAM? This is the PowerMac PRAM driver but looks 
> > generic enough that it may not need any modification for 68k Macs.
> 
> Yes, that would be great.
> 

Unfortunately, it seems to be unworkable.

The only user of generic_nvram is PPC32 (PPC64 could benefit though). 
PPC32 uses the driver by defining both CONFIG_NVRAM and 
CONFIG_GENERIC_NVRAM.

I tried to simplify this so that CONFIG_GENERIC_NVRAM would build 
drivers/char/generic_nvram, while CONFIG_NVRAM would build 
drivers/char/nvram, in order that it would become possible to have a 
multi-platform kernel with both, either, or niether.

But that approach brings new problems:

- An m68k multi-platform kernel would need to contain both modules, and 
  both modules would need MODULE_ALIAS_MISCDEV(NVRAM_MINOR). This isn't 
  going to work. (It's likely that other platforms might also want to use 
  generic_nvram and the same problem would apply to x86 and ARM.)

- The misc device code in drivers/char/nvram is duplicated in 
  generic_nvram. To avoid this duplication, the nvram module could 
  leverage the generic_nvram module instead. This doesn't work either.  
  Systems like mine (Gentoo) have "alias char-major-10-144 nvram" in 
  /etc/modprobe.d/i386.conf, which means that accessing /dev/nvram causes 
  the wrong module to load.

In the end I concluded that the only plausible "generic" driver is 
actually drivers/char/nvram itself. Otherwise it would be under an arch/ 
directory and not under drivers/.

So the nvram module should be the one with 
MODULE_ALIAS_MISCDEV(NVRAM_MAJOR), and it should work on any architecture 
that needs to use it. (Sure enough, drivers/char/generic_nvram lacks the 
MODULE_ALIAS.)

So I believe that the solution is to eliminate drivers/char/generic_nvram 
altogether, and move the architecture-specific code out of 
drivers/char/nvram, so the nvram module can be re-used more easily. I 
think that PPC32, PPC64 and m68k could readily re-use it.

Drivers themselves all test for CONFIG_NVRAM; never CONFIG_GENERIC_NVRAM. 
This is another indication that the generic_nvram driver is surplus to 
requirement.

The CONFIG_PROC_FS support (/proc/driver/nvram) in the drivers/char/nvram 
module is inherently architecture-specific. I suspect that the 
Atari-specific code should move to arch/m68k/atari/ and the x86-specific 
code should move to arch/x86/.

I find the ARM support in drivers/char/nvram to be surprising, not to say 
questionable. The /proc/driver/nvram implementation, given 
defined(__arm__), decodes the NVRAM contents in exactly the same format as 
when defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__). Whereas, only MIPS and 
PowerPC defconfigs set CONFIG_RTC_DRV_CMOS at all, and without that symbol 
the driver will never be built for ARM. This raises the question, does 
/proc/driver/nvram do anything useful on any ARM platforms?

Some guidance on this problem would be appreciated; all the approaches I 
tried led to unsatisfactory compromises. I don't want to keep re-writing 
these patches without a workable plan.

-- 
--
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/