linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] nvmem: Add support for write-only instances

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, 24 Mar 2020 13:25:46 +0000
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] nvmem: Add support for write-only instances



On 24/03/2020 12:29, Greg KH wrote:
>> But the Idea here is :
>> We ended up with providing different options like read-only,root-only to
>> nvmem providers combined with read/write callbacks.
>> With that, there are some cases which are totally invalid, existing code
>> does very minimal check to ensure that before populating with correct
>> attributes to sysfs file. One of such case is with thunderbolt provider
>> which supports only write callback.
>>
>> With this new checks in place these flags and callbacks are correctly
>> validated, would result in correct file attributes.
> Why this crazy set of different groups?  You can set the mode of a sysfs
> file in the callback for when the file is about to be created, that's so
> much simpler and is what it is for.  This feels really hacky and almost
> impossible to follow:(
Thanks for the inputs, That definitely sounds much simpler to deal with.

Am guessing you are referring to is_bin_visible callback?

I will try to clean this up!

thanks,
srini
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h