linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: change fixup of dma-ranges size to error

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: <19a2a28f-8338-970e-3b5f-05be3362fb9a@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:18:11 +0530
From:   Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@....com>
Cc:     "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: change fixup of dma-ranges size to error

Hi Frank,

<snip..>

>>> Can we get back to the basic premise of the proposed patch?
>>>
>>> The current code in of_dma_configure() contains a hack that allows the
>>> dma-ranges property to specify a mask instead of a size.  The binding
>>> in the specification allows a size and does not allow a mask.
>>>
>>> The hack was added to account for one or more dts files that did not
>>> follow the specification.  In the mail list discussion of the hack
>>> you said "Also, we need a WARN here so DTs get fixed."
>>>
>>> The hack was first present in Linux 4.1.  The only in-tree dts that
>>> incorrectly contained a mask instead of a size in dma-ranges was
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi
>>>
>>> That .dtsi was fixed by
>>> commit c91cb9123cdd ("dtb: amd: Fix DMA ranges in device tree")
>>> The fix was present in Linux 4.6, May 15, 2016.
>>>
>>> I would like to remove the hack.  I think that enough time has
>>> elapsed to allow this change.
>>
>> If we have no cases of what I'm concerned about, then removing it is
>> fine. Is this a dependency for iommu series? Doesn't look like it to
>> me.
>
> This patch is a replacement for patch 03/12 in the iommu series.  I
> think that patch 03/12 of the iommu series could be dropped and my
> patch could be applied independently of the iommu series.
>
> There is likely a conflict between my patch and patch 06/12 of the
> iommu series because in my patch the first line of the patch chunk
> of drivers/of/device.c includes a line that is changed in 06/12
> of the iommu series.  If this is the case then the iommu series
> should take precedence over my patch (and I should subsequently
> fixup my patch).
>

Ok, for which i just posted a V11 [1] with patch 03/12 from
V10 dropped.

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1373638.html

Regards,
  Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation