linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: Convert fsl_rstcr

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, 26 Jul 2016 02:59:05 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
To:	Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <alessio.bogani@...ttra.eu>,
	Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: Convert fsl_rstcr_restart to a reset
 handler

On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 21:25 -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> Convert fsl_rstcr_restart into a function to be registered with
> register_reset_handler() API and introduce fls_rstcr_restart_register()
> function that can be added as an initcall that would do aforementioned
> registration.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>

Is there a particular motivation for this (e.g. new handlers you plan to
register elsewhere)?

> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/bsc913x_qds.c
> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/bsc913x_qds.c
> index 07dd6ae..14ea7a0 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/bsc913x_qds.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/bsc913x_qds.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static void __init bsc913x_qds_setup_arch(void)
>  }
>  
>  machine_arch_initcall(bsc9132_qds, mpc85xx_common_publish_devices);
> +machine_arch_initcall(bsc9133_qds, fsl_rstcr_restart_register);

Do we really still need to call the registration on a per-board basis, now
that boards have a way of registering a higher-priority notifier?  Can't we
just have setup_rstcr() do the registration when it finds the appropriate
device tree node?

> +int fsl_rstcr_restart_register(void)
> +{
> +	static struct notifier_block restart_handler;
> +
> +	restart_handler.notifier_call = fsl_rstcr_restart;
> +	restart_handler.priority = 128;
> +
> +	return register_restart_handler(&restart_handler);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fsl_rstcr_restart_register);

When would this ever get called from a module?

-Scott