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, 12 Dec 2016 18:04:44 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
Cc:     robert.jarzmik@...e.fr, dwmw2@...radead.org,
        computersforpeace@...il.com, marek.vasut@...il.com, richard@....at,
        cyrille.pitchen@...el.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2] mtd: devices: docg3:- Handle return value of devm_ioremap.

Hi Arvind,

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:33:05 +0530
arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com> wrote:

> There is problem, if you will use devm_ioremap_resource instead of 
> devm_ioremap,
> than devm_ioremap_resource will call request_mem_region().
> request_mem_region() allows to tell the kernel that this driver is going 
> to use
> this range of I/O addresses, which will prevent other drivers to make an
> overlapping call to request_mem_region If other driver want to use same 
> address
> space to access then it will not allow. Means we can not share same 
> address space
> between two driver.

The question is, is it required here? In general, allowing 2 different
drivers from touching the same iomem region is a bad idea, so, if
there's a reason to allow that here, I'd like to know more about it.

Thanks,

Boris

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ