[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_kgHEhk-p8KoGVgpifdjA67Li-D19_KSLo+1h4ZvL=3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:39:32 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>,
Jun Yao <yaojun8558363@...il.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: implement update_fdt_pgprot()
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 16:37, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Basically does similar things like __fixmap_remap_fdt(). It's supposed
> > to be called after fixmap_remap_fdt() is called at least once, so region
> > checking can be skipped. Since it needs to know dt physical address, make
> > a copy of the value of __fdt_pointer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 ++
> > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> Why not just map the FDT R/W at the start and change it to RO just
> before calling unflatten_device_tree? Then all the FDT scanning
> functions or any future fixups we need can just assume R/W. That is
> essentially what Stephen suggested. However, there's no need for a
> weak function as it can all be done within the arch code.
>
> However, I'm still wondering why the FDT needs to be RO in the first place.
>
It was RO because it could be RO, and we wanted to ensure that it
didn't get modified inadvertently (hence the CRC check we added as
well)
If there is a need for the FDT to be RW, let's make it RW.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists