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: <a9e1e18c034dfa185eeb5492acf2dff7@walle.cc>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:21:31 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com
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

Am 2021-03-17 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
> 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?

It's just an internal name, thus as long as it remotely makes sense,
I'm fine. It's just a matter of taste, isn't it?

But here's one technical reason that would bother me more: name
clashes between the core modules: core, sfdp, otp, swp and the
vendor names. It is very unlikely, but there is a non-zero chance ;)

-michael