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:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:31:40 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Daniel Gutson <daniel@...ypsium.com>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Bazhaniuk <alex@...ypsium.com>,
        Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: intel-spi: Do not try to make the SPI flash
 chip writable

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:15 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:08:33AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:22 AM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:06:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:11 AM Mika Westerberg
> > > >
> > > > The mtd core just checks both the permissions on the device node (which
> > > > default to 0600 without any special udev rules) and the MTD_WRITEABLE
> > > > on the underlying device that is controlled by the module parameter
> > > > in case of intel-spi{,-platform,-pci}.c.
> > >
> > > OK, thanks.
> > >
> > > Since we cannot really get rid of the module parameter (AFAIK there are
> > > users for it), I still think we should just make the "writeable" to
> > > apply to the PCI part as well. That should at least make it consistent,
> > > and it also solves Daniel's case.
> >
> > Can you explain Daniel's case then? I still don't understand what he
> > actually wants.
> >
> > As I keep repeating, the module parameter *does* apply to the pci
> > driver front-end since it determines whether the driver will disallow
> > writes to the mtd device without it. The only difference is that the pci
> > driver will attempt to set the hardware bit without checking the
> > module parameter first, while the platform driver does not. If the
> > module parameter is not set however, the state of the hardware
> > bit is never checked again.
>
> I think Daniel wants the PCI driver not to set the hardware bit by
> default (same as the platform driver).

Sure, but *why*?

    Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists