linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Report enabled nodes with duplicated address

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 14:02:24 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Report enabled nodes with duplicated address

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:11 AM Sam Protsenko
<semen.protsenko@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 16:03, Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Duplicated unit address is a normal case, as long as no more than one
> > node using that address is enabled. Having duplicated addresses is
> > already allowed by '-Wno-unique_unit_address' in DTC_FLAGS. But two
> > simultaneously enabled nodes sharing the same address is usually
> > incorrect. Add '-Wunique_unit_address_if_enabled' flag to report
> > warnings for such case when doing "make dtbs_check".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
> > Reported-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > Suggested-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > NOTE: After applying this patch, a lot of warnings appear on "make
> > dtbs_check". I'm not completely sure if it's ok, so feel free to Nack.
> >
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Do you think this patch is feasible? You asked me to send it before,
> though I now see it leads to a lot of errors being revealed when doing
> "make dtbs" and "make dtbs_check". Please let me know if it's Ack or
> Nack -- I'm fine with any resolution, just want to know if I should
> continue to carry it in my local branch or drop it.

Sorry, I'd missed this. Anyway, since there are lots of warnings, we
can't apply this.

Rob