linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2,5/5] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:40:26 -0500
From:   Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        christophe.leroy@....fr, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        kernel@...o.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2,5/5] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram

On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:30 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 02:26:55PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Instead, have module parameters that take the sizes and alignments you'd
> > like
> > to allocate and expose to userspace.  Better still would be some sort of
> > dynamic allocation (e.g. open a fd, ioctl to set the requested
> > size/alignment,
> > if it succeeds you can mmap it, and when the fd is closed the region is
> > freed).
> 
> No module parameters please, this is not the 1990's.
> 
> Use device tree, that is what it is there for.

Since when is the device tree for indicating desired allocations?  This is not
hardware description.

If module parameters are unacceptable, then I'd suggest dynamic allocation as
described above.

-Scott