linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to .probe()

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, 30 Jun 2022 11:15:34 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to .probe()

Hi Krzysztof,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:48 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
> >> rpcif so it had access to all fields.
> >
> > Yes I am, don't be misguided by the name of the local variable.
> > The rpcif structure is allocated by the HF or SPI child driver,
> > and thus not available in the RPC core driver's .probe() function.
> > The rpc_priv structure (as of patch 4) is allocated by the RPC core driver.
> >
> >>> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
> >>
> >> This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
> >
> > I can make it second? ;-)
>
> Why? The point is that this commit should have Fixes or Cc-stable tag.
> If you make it depending on other non-backportable commit, stable folks
> cannot pull it automatically.

Because the current driver structure does not allow us to fix the
problem in a simple way.  Hence the need for patch 4 first.

> > Note that that still precludes (easily) backporting s2ram support.
>
> But S2R is a feature so it won't be backported...

Working rebind is a feature, too?

Actually non-working s2ram is worse, as it returns corrupted data
(haven't dared to try writing after s2ram yet ;-),  while non-working
rebind means you just cannot access the device anymore.

But note there are still issues with s2ram...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds