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: Fri, 24 May 2019 17:22:47 -0700 From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Solve postboot supplier cleanup and optimize probe ordering On 5/24/19 2:53 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:49 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/23/19 6:01 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: < snip > >> Another flaw with this method is that existing device trees >> will be broken after the kernel is modified, because existing >> device trees do not have the depends-on property. This breaks >> the devicetree compatibility rules. > > This is 100% not true with the current implementation. I actually > tested this. This is fully backwards compatible. That's another reason > for adding depends-on and going by just what it says. The existing > bindings were never meant to describe only mandatory dependencies. So > using them as such is what would break backwards compatibility. Are you saying that an existing, already compiled, devicetree (an FDT) can be used to boot a new kernel that has implemented this patch set? The new kernel will boot with the existing FDT that does not have any depends-on properties? -Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists