linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Removing full paths from DT full

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:   Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:31:52 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Removing full paths from DT full_name

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 07/25/17 14:44, Rob Herring wrote:
>> This series is the last steps to remove storing the full path for every
>> DT node. Instead, we can create full path strings dynamically as needed
>> with printf %pOF specifiers (commit ce4fecf1fe15). There are a number of
>> remaining direct users of full_name after this series. I don't believe
>> there should be any functional impact for those users with the change to
>> only the node name (+unit-address). The majority are for struct
>> resource.name. This should only affect /proc/iomem display.
>
> I added a new dependency on full_name in:
>
>   [PATCH v4 3/3] of: overlay: add overlay symbols to live device tree
>
> You don't need to fix that -- I knew the removal of full_name was coming
> and expected to adapt to that change when it came, so I'll take care of
> it.  It will probably take me two or three weeks to get to it, but that
> shouldn't be a big deal since the affected code is a new feature that
> is not yet used.

Indeed, I had fixed up the print statements, but missed that. Thanks
for the heads up.

Rob