linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] block: add new genhd flag GENHD_FL

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: <192acb8f-47b8-426c-bcc9-ef214a797f26@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:22:32 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Thomas Weißschuh
 <linux@...ssschuh.net>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
 Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>, Christian Brauner
 <brauner@...nel.org>, Christian Heusel <christian@...sel.eu>,
 Min Li <min15.li@...sung.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
 Christian Loehle <CLoehle@...erstone.com>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
 Yeqi Fu <asuk4.q@...il.com>, Victor Shih <victor.shih@...esyslogic.com.tw>,
 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
 Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>,
 "Ricardo B. Marliere" <ricardo@...liere.net>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] block: add new genhd flag GENHD_FL_NVMEM

On 3/22/24 11:07, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:49:48AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 3/21/24 12:33, Daniel Golle wrote:
>>>    enum {
>>>    	GENHD_FL_REMOVABLE			= 1 << 0,
>>>    	GENHD_FL_HIDDEN				= 1 << 1,
>>>    	GENHD_FL_NO_PART			= 1 << 2,
>>> +	GENHD_FL_NVMEM				= 1 << 3,
>>>    };
>>
>> What would break if this flag wouldn't exist?
> 
> As both, MTD and UBI already act as NVMEM providers themselves, once
> the user creates a ubiblock device or got CONFIG_MTD_BLOCK=y set in their
> kernel configuration, we would run into problems because both, the block
> layer as well as MTD or UBI would try to be an NVMEM provider for the same
> device tree node.

Why would both MTD and UBI try to be an NVMEM provider for the same
device tree node? Why can't this patch series be implemented such that
a partition UUID occurs in the device tree and such that other code
scans for that partition UUID?

Thanks,

Bart.