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
| ||
|
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