linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] 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: <2024013059-poison-equation-81d1@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:51:25 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>,
	Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, kernel@...labora.com,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
	Abhijit Gangurde <abhijit.gangurde@....com>,
	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 v2 2/7] firmware: coreboot: Generate aliases for coreboot
 modules

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 02:06:14PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 07:09:29PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:18:31AM -0300, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > > Generate aliases for coreboot modules to allow automatic module probing.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > (no changes since v1)
> > 
> > Same Q as per v1.
> 
> I don't have v1 in my inbox, and this wasn't addressed in v3 either. But
> copy/pasted off the archives:
> 
> "Don't you want to have a driver data or so associated with this?"
> 
> These drivers are super simple, and I doubt they will end up with
> multiple tags per driver, so it seems unlikely we'd ever need it.
> Additionally, struct coreboot_device already includes the tag
> information, so anything that could be included in driver data could be
> parsed out by the driver at probe time, if absolutely needed.

But why limit yourself to 32bits now?  Why not make it 64?  It is going
to be sent to userspace, so you have to be very careful about it.

thanks,

greg k-h