linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Overlay manager for predefined DT overlay fragments

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2017 15:10:15 -0800
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Overlay manager for predefined DT overlay fragments

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:20 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:51:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>> It seems you're suggesting that there be some sort of special overlay
>>> partition which users have to flash with pre-built images containing
>>> the appropriate overlay dtbs, so that something like the treble
>>> overlay-per-partition approach could be used.
>>
>> I'm not really suggesting anything. I'm not going to take something that
>> *only* solves your usecase of apply an overlay embedded in a base dtb
>> based on the kernel command line. I have no issue really with either one
>> of those. What I don't want is another "overlay manager" for each
>> usecase. And sorry, you don't win for being first (you're not really).
>> All this I said before.
>
> So, I'm not actually asking anyone to take anything here, I'm just
> trying to reopen the conversation that hasn't gone very far, so we can
> find some direction to take.
>
> I've not followed the discussion super closely here, so apologies if
> I'm off base here.  But it does seem there's a number of similar
> efforts, and it seems no one has gotten enough momentum to make a real
> push upstream. It seems its just easier for everyone to keep their own
> approach in their own tree and not to bother.  At one end, sure,
> keeping half baked ideas out of mainline until they really sort
> themselves out is fine, but at the other extreme you risk the
> half-baked ideas calcifying in their own tree and then you have more
> Android (or whatever variant) specific cruft to shake your fist at.
> :)
>
> How do we get to a shared solution here where folks are engaging with upstream?
>
> Even an "I like approach B, go make that work" would help here.

Nudge.  Any further thoughts on what sort of an approach might be viable here?

thanks
-john