[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL9cJ+8scZ+Cg9yqdc9+rb563xs-qVjXXuPRJYjNa4Y8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 14:09:55 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, jwerner@...omium.org,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Improve backward compatibility with older Chromebooks
From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Date: Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:48 AM
To: Kees Cook, Anton Vorontsov
Cc: <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>, <jwerner@...omium.org>,
<groeck@...omium.org>, <mka@...omium.org>, <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson, Colin Cross, Tony Luck,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> When you try to run an upstream kernel on an old ARM-based Chromebook
> you'll find that console-ramoops doesn't work.
>
> Old ARM-based Chromebooks, before <https://crrev.com/c/439792>
> ("ramoops: support upstream {console,pmsg,ftrace}-size properties")
> used to create a "ramoops" node at the top level that looked like:
>
> / {
> ramoops {
> compatible = "ramoops";
> reg = <...>;
> record-size = <...>;
> dump-oops;
> };
> };
>
> ...and these Chromebooks assumed that the downstream kernel would make
> console_size / pmsg_size match the record size. The above ramoops
> node was added by the firmware so it's not easy to make any changes.
>
> Let's match the expected behavior, but only for those using the old
> backward-compatible way of working where ramoops is right under the
> root node.
>
> NOTE: if there are some out-of-tree devices that had ramoops at the
> top level, left everything but the record size as 0, and somehow
> doesn't want this behavior, we can try to add more conditions here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
I like this; thanks! Rob is this okay by you? I just want to
double-check since it's part of the DT parsing logic.
I'll pick it up and add a Cc: stable.
-Kees
> ---
>
> fs/pstore/ram.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> index c5c685589e36..8df3bfa2837f 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> @@ -669,6 +669,7 @@ static int ramoops_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
> struct ramoops_platform_data *pdata)
> {
> struct device_node *of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + struct device_node *parent_node;
> struct resource *res;
> u32 value;
> int ret;
> @@ -703,6 +704,23 @@ static int ramoops_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
>
> #undef parse_size
>
> + /*
> + * Some old Chromebooks relied on the kernel setting the console_size
> + * and pmsg_size to the record size since that's what the downstream
> + * kernel did. These same Chromebooks had "ramoops" straight under
> + * the root node which isn't according to the upstream bindings. Let's
> + * make those old Chromebooks work by detecting this and mimicing the
> + * expected behavior.
> + */
> + parent_node = of_get_parent(of_node);
> + if (of_node_is_root(parent_node) &&
> + !pdata->console_size && !pdata->ftrace_size &&
> + !pdata->pmsg_size && !pdata->ecc_info.ecc_size) {
> + pdata->console_size = pdata->record_size;
> + pdata->pmsg_size = pdata->record_size;
> + }
> + of_node_put(parent_node);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog
>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists