linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings

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: <CAGXu5jJG6-QS9Z75Px-0ZF8A222OPtHq8Hc8QYFu6vZGAoOeVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:40:47 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Markus Pargmann <mpa@...gutronix.de>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Lee Campbell <leecam@...gle.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This is a "v4" of Greg Hackmann's DT bindings for ramoops. This is
>> what I'm going to land in the pstore tree unless there are strong and
>> convincing arguments against it. :)
>>
>> I made a number of changes based people's feedback, and I want to get
>> it unblocked. This patch is already carried by Android, and it doesn't
>> need to be out of tree.
>>
>> To respond to Arnd's comment: I like this as the ramoops node, not the
>> pstore node, since it describes the ramoops backend, not the pstore
>> subsystem, which has different controls, and can only have one backend
>> at a time. So it doesn't make sense to me to have this have a redundant
>> extra pstore node, since the very presence of ramoops implies pstore.
>
> Either I don't follow or you don't get Arnd's comment...
>
> IIRC, his suggestion which I agree with was to remove the memory-region
> phandle and just move all the properties into the reserved memory node
> directly. This simplifies things such that we are just describing
> properties of a chunk of memory rather than a Linux specific node for
> virtual driver.

Ah! Okay, I'm a DT newbie, so I think I misunderstood Arnd. :) If it's
easy, can you create a patch for that against the v4 I sent of Greg's
patch? I'm not sure how to do what you're suggesting. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security