linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] nvmem: add block device NVMEM provider

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]

Message-ID: <ZLjdlbf0TXZSZa2t@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 00:09:09 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Min Li <min15.li@...sung.com>,
        Christian Loehle <CLoehle@...erstone.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Yeqi Fu <asuk4.q@...il.com>, Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] nvmem: add block device NVMEM provider

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:01:14PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> This series is meant to open the discussion on how exactly the device tree
> schema for block devices and partitions may look like, and even if using
> the block layer to back the NVMEM device is at all the way to go -- to me
> it seemed to be a good solution because it will be reuable e.g. for NVMe.

If only NVMe did something sane there.  NVMe copied the completely
idiotic idea of boot partitions from eMMC/SD, and made it even worse
by first requiring bit banged register access for them, and now adding
a weird admin command to read them, which is not bound to a block
device.  If we want to support that in NVMe we'll need code in the
nvme core, but I hope we can avoid it and no one sane (that is
everyone but the completely clueless BIOS people at Intel) will never
use this completely fucked up boot partition concept.