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]

Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:35:06 +0530
From:   Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
CC:     <vigneshr@...com>, <michael@...le.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 17/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
> 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?

I don't have much of an opinion on this tbh. But I usually prefer short 
names so I'd go with swp.c here. Maybe also add a comment at the top of 
the file mentioning the full name "Software Write Protection logic" or 
something similar for clarification.

> 
> >>>
> >>
> 
> 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.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.