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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45d00a12-cb79-774e-f8e8-d65602629a90@microchip.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 06:09:17 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <vigneshr@...com>, <p.yadav@...com>, <michael@...le.cc>
CC:     <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 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>> 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>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
>>> bit:
>>>
>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?

Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
Michael, Pratyush?

>>>
>>

cut

> 
> I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
> olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.
> 

I'm fine keeping them as they are for now. If someone else screams we will
reconsider.