linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] firmware: coreboot: Generate aliases for coreboot modules

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: <Za0Q-em5R2_9cX7q@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 14:41:29 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
Cc: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, kernel@...labora.com,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	Abhijit Gangurde <abhijit.gangurde@....com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
	Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@....com>,
	Pieter Jansen van Vuuren <pieter.jansen-van-vuuren@....com>,
	Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] firmware: coreboot: Generate aliases for coreboot
 modules

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:53:23AM -0300, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 07:08:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:11:47PM -0300, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > > Generate aliases for coreboot modules to allow automatic module probing.

..

> > > +/**
> > > + * struct coreboot_device_id - Identifies a coreboot table entry
> > > + * @tag: tag ID
> > > + */
> > > +struct coreboot_device_id {
> > > +	__u32 tag;
> > > +};
> > 
> > Don't you want to have a driver data or so associated with this?
> 
> There's no need for it currently in any driver. This struct is being created
> simply to allow auto modprobe. So it seems reasonable to leave it out and add it
> later when/if needed.

The problem is that you introduce a kinda ABI here, how do you handle this later?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko