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:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:46:52 -0800
From:   Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>
To:     Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
Cc:     Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv/efi_stub: Fix get_boot_hartid_from_fdt() return value

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:55 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:09:05PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Feb 14 2022, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/14/22 11:15, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >> On Feb 14 2022, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> set_boot_hartid() implies that the caller can change the boot hart ID.
> > >>> As this is not a case this name obviously would be a misnomer.
> > >>
> > >> initialize_boot_hartid would fit better.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Another misnomer.
> >
> > But the best fit so far.
>
> Can we use the name init_boot_hartid_from_fdt()? While I understand
> Heinrich's point, I think since we have "_from_fdt", this may be fine.
>

init_boot_hartid_from_fdt or parse_boot_hartid_from_fdt

are definitely much better than the current one.

> I didn't rename the function since it was not recommended to do multiple
> things in a "Fix" patch. If we can consider this as not very serious
> issue which needs a "Fix" patch, then I can combine this patch with the
> RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL patch series.
>

IMHO, it is okay to include this in the RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL series
as we are not going to have hartid U32_MAX in a few months :)


> Hi Ard, let me know your suggestion on how to proceed with this.
>
> Thanks
> Sunil
> >
> > --
> > Andreas Schwab, schwab@...ux-m68k.org
> > GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
> > "And now for something completely different."



-- 
Regards,
Atish

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ