linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dtc: Add dtb build information option

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:18:39 +0000
From:   Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre@...aro.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Devicetree Compiler <devicetree-compiler@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dtc: Add dtb build information option

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:59:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:41 AM David Gibson
><david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> It's not really about who consumes it.  It's about defining a
>> namespace for the new property to exist in, since it's not part of a
>> relevant standard (if we wanted to make it such, we should pin down
>> what goes in there with much more precision).
>
>I can't think of any cases of the 'linux' prefix not being about who
>consumes it. And we often end up dropping 'linux' because it turns out
>to not be Linux specific. I don't care to see u-boot,build-info,
>freebsd,build-info, etc. when a given dtb can only have 1 of those.

Yes, exactly. What would happen if somebody (tried to) fill in more
than one of XXXX.build-info? It makes no sense.

>My intent is this property name is added to the DT spec, but I don't
>agree we should define what's in it beyond a string. It is information
>that is useful for humans identifying what the dtb was built from.

Nod - defining this as a free-form string lets people put their own
information in, without us having to try and agree on a full spec
which we'll need to update as ideas change.

-- 
Steve McIntyre                                steve.mcintyre@...aro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs