linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Change staging size to a variable

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]

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 14:52:48 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>
Cc: Peter Colberg <peter.colberg@...el.com>,
	Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
	Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Change staging size to a variable

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:19:47AM -0700, Russ Weight wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:09:05AM -0700, Russ Weight wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:46:29PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:35:59PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > > > From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The size of the staging area in FLASH for FPGA updates is dependent on the
> > > > size of the FPGA. Currently, the staging size is defined as a constant.
> > > > Larger FPGAs are coming soon and it will soon be necessary to support
> > > 
> > > Soon? When? You cannot add some feature without a user case. If you do
> > > have a use case, put the patch in the same patchset.
> > 
> > There may never be an up-streamed use-case. This is a very small
> > change intended to make it easier for a third-party vendor to
> > build a card that requires a larger staging area in FLASH. They
> > would have to add a new "struct m10bmc_csr_map", but they
> > wouldn't have to refactor this code as part of the change

I'm OK with this description.

Peter, is that what you mean? Or you do have a board type to follow, in
which case you need to submit the new board type as well.

> > 
> > This change does not introduce an unused function or variable.
> > It is more of a clean-up, making the code more flexible.
> > 
> > Can it not be taken as is?
> 
> Would it be acceptable to just change the commit message to something
> like:
> 
> Do not hardwire the staging size in the secure update driver. Move
> the staging size to the m10bmc_csr_map structure to make the size
> assignment more flexible.

That would be much better.

Thanks,
Yilun