linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties

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:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:22:38 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child
 node properties

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 4:47 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> > TBC, 'protocol@.*' would not allow anything but the properties defined
> > in the /$defs/protocol-node. So [1] would throw errors without a
> > schema addition.
>
> Right I clearly missed that, somehow I assumed it would allow.
>
> > We should either do that along with dropping 'protocol@18' or we keep
> > protocol 0x18 node and add all other providerless protocols. I don't
> > think we need the latter to just check unit-address vs. reg.
>
> I only argument today it to allow protocol specific transport. So we could
> delay addition of it until someone needs that way. So far we haven't seen
> anyone using it other than performance(even that is not needed with the
> introduction of fast channels that are auto discoverable in relatively
> newer versions of the spec).

I failed to think about 'protocol@.*' would match on every protocol,
so we have to list them explicitly: '^protocol@(18|xx|yy|zz)$'

Anyways, I think the conclusion is the patch should stay as-is and so
I've applied it.

Rob