linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] virt: vmgenid: add support for devicetree bindings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:16:05 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: robh@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, krzk@...nel.org, 
	"Landge, Sudan" <sudanl@...zon.co.uk>, conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sudanl@...zon.com, graf@...zon.com, 
	dwmw@...zon.co.uk, xmarcalx@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] virt: vmgenid: add support for devicetree bindings

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 4:14 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 19/04/2024 16:02, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:30 PM Landge, Sudan <sudanl@...zon.couk> wrote:
> >>>   config VMGENID
> >>>          tristate "Virtual Machine Generation ID driver"
> >>>          default y
> >>> -       depends on ACPI
> >>> +       depends on ACPI || OF
> >>
> >> Version 2 of the patches had these flag but were removed in version3
> >> following the below review comment from Rob:
> >> "One of those is pretty much always enabled, so it can probably be dropped."
> >> reference :
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAL_JsqJoB5CYajWuntMdQrJZir+ZA-69Q0cwvxcVZAqs-mXC+Q@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Are you sure about that? I see other drivers that depend on `ACPI ||
> > OF`, and this driver is totally useless without either disabled
> > (right?), so the dependency makes sense. I think? Not an expert in
> > this area, so I'm happy to defer to what you know is best, but I did
> > want to lightly pushback a bit.
> >
>
> There are just 18 cases, so I would argue that it's not a real pattern
> but could be just growing organically, without really thinking.
>
> The driver could still be probed on some !ACPI and !OF system via driver
> name matching.
>
> Keeping it as is seems harmless, but OTOH, if this stays, you miss ||
> COMPILE_TEST

Fair enough, I'll ditch it.

Jason