linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] fpga: dfl: look for vendor specific capability

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]

Message-ID: <2a81ac9c-482e-c0ec-ea71-d811fdf8a01a@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:29:51 -0800
From:   Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To:     matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mdf@...nel.org, hao.wu@...el.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fpga: dfl: look for vendor specific capability


>> Is this really an either/or ?
>>
>> Could there be a base functionality on bar0 and a skew functionality on vendor bars?
>
> For simplicity I think either or is better.  If skew functionality is in vendor bars, why not just use the vendor bars all the time.
>
>>
>> If vendor is going to completely override, why not use bar0 ?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question, but in v2 the legacy DFL search will only occur if there is no VSEC found.
>
Wondering if vsec was ignored, would the bar0 work ?

Or another way, how badly would an old driver behave.

consider incrementing the driver version if it would be bad.

Tom


>>
>> Tom
>>
>>>
>>>      if (ret)
>>>          goto irq_free_exit;
>>
>>
>