linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

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: <65691b2a-134d-b1f2-617e-5ef09df9a742@microchip.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:09:20 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <michael@...le.cc>
CC:     <vigneshr@...com>, <p.yadav@...com>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        <richard@....at>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic
 out of the core

On 3/6/21 1:19 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g.
>> Individual
>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>> ---
> 
> [..]
> 
>> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
>> *name,
>>       if (ret)
>>               return ret;
>>
>> +     if (nor->params->locking_ops)
> 
> Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.
> 
> void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
>     if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
>         return;
> ..
> }

Yes, the checking should be done inside spi_nor_register_locking_ops,
will move it.

Btw, what do you find a better name, spi_nor_register_locking_ops or
spi_nor_init_locking_ops? Applies to OTP as well.

Thanks,
ta

> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
> I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
> be the same though.
> 
>> +             spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);
> 
> -michael