linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] remoteproc: Rename rproc_elf_sanity

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200310193042.GK264362@yoga>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:30:42 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Cl?ment Leger <cleger@...rayinc.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-remoteproc <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
        Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...com>, s-anna <s-anna@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] remoteproc: Rename rproc_elf_sanity_check for
 elf32

On Tue 10 Mar 08:38 PDT 2020, Cl?ment Leger wrote:

> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> ----- On 10 Mar, 2020, at 16:20, Mathieu Poirier mathieu.poirier@...aro.org wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:00:05PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >> On Tue 03 Mar 00:02 PST 2020, Cl?ment Leger wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Hi Bjorn,
> >> > 
> >> > ----- On 3 Mar, 2020, at 00:13, Bjorn Andersson bjorn.andersson@...aro.org
> >> > wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > On Mon 02 Mar 01:38 PST 2020, Clement Leger wrote:
> >> > > 
> >> > >> Since this function will be modified to support both elf32 and elf64,
> >> > >> rename the existing one to elf32 (which is the only supported format
> >> > >> at the moment). This will allow not to introduce possible side effect
> >> > >> when adding elf64 support (ie: all backends will still support only
> >> > >> elf32 if not requested explicitely using rproc_elf_sanity_check).
> >> > >> 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Is there a reason for preventing ELF64 binaries be loaded?
> >> > 
> >> > I decided to go this way to let driver maintainer decide if they want
> >> > to support elf64 to avoid problems with 64bits addresses/sizes which do
> >> > not fit in their native type (size_t for instance). This is probably
> >> > not going to happen and there are additionnal checks before calling
> >> > rproc_da_to_va. And addresses should be filtered by rproc_da_to_va.
> >> > So, actually it seems there is no reason to forbid supporting elf32/64
> >> > for all drivers.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> I was hoping to hear some additional feedback on this from others.
> > 
> > I didn't follow up on this one because I agreed with your assesment and didn't
> > think it was needed.
> > 
> > Simply put I would rather see rproc_elf_sanity_check() gain support for elf64
> > and let the platform code decide what to do with format they don't support
> > rather than spinning a new function.
> > 
> >> 
> >> I've merge the patch as is, but think it would be nice to clean this up
> >> and just have the driver ignore if fed a 32 or 64-elf.
> > 
> > It would be really nice to see this cleaned up in time for the coming merge
> > window...
> 
> I could have sent a V7, but Bjorn was faster than my comment ;)

I figured it had been maturing on the list long enough and expected the
cleanup to be a nice incremental patch.

> Bjorn, Is there any way to revert that or it's already pushed ?
> I already have a clean V7.
> 

Please base your changes on what's in rproc-next (and today's
linux-next).

Thank you,
Bjorn