linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] linux-next panics when trying to mount root

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: <0d3201d921386c32d2b65b3b7d3e10e7@milecki.pl>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:20:11 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] linux-next panics when trying to mount root

On 2018-01-16 16:30, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:02:35 +0100
> Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-01-16 15:21, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:56:52 +0100
>> > Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hmmm, I guess the question is if the command line should override the
>> >> device tree or not?
>> >
>> > Yep, that's the problem. Now the core parses the compatible to decides
>> > which part parser should be used. The thing is, the "cmdline" parser is
>> > not yet exposing a compatible id, and even if it was, this would
>> > require patching all DTs to add this new compatible.
>> >
>> > 	partitions {
>> > 		compatible = "cmdline", "fixed-partitions";
>> > 		...
>> > 	};
>> >
>> > Not really an option, so I'll drop the 2 patches for now until we find a
>> > better solution.
>> >
>> >> I'm going to send a patch for the above dts change either way...
>> >
>> > If you want, but that does not solve the problem: we should not break
>> > existing users.
>> 
>> Well, don't let these devices stop you, they will not get a new kernel
>> w/o also getting a new dtb, and I can handle this just fine. But maybe
>> I'm just the first reporter and you'd rather not risk anything? 
>> Anyway,
>> just wanted to let you know where I stand...
> 
> Unfortunately, at91 is not the only platform to have "fixed-partitions"
> defined in its DTs, and I guess users of other platforms also like to
> override the default MTD layout by their own using mtdparts.I'd like to
> find a solution that keeps everyone happy.

I absolutely agree with Boris, we can't risk such regressions. That had 
to
be dropped and I'm looking for a better solution.