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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 16:58:29 -0700 From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>, "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>, Julius Werner <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 Hi, On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:10 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > 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. Hold off a second--I may need to send out a v2 but out of time for the day. I think I need a #include file to fix errors on x86: > implicit declaration of function 'of_node_is_root' [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration I'm unfortunately out of time for now, but I'll post a v2 within the next day. -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists