linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: decompressor: support AUTO

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: <666ad6e0.df0a0220.f8b16.4a5e@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:24:13 +0200
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	"Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
	John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: decompressor: support AUTO_ZRELADDR and
 appended DTB

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:57:00PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 09:29:32PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > This series try to address a long lasting problem with legacy device
> > that require an appended DTB and the use of AUTO_ZRELADDR.
> > 
> > With these device AUTO_ZRELADDR is not possible if for some reason at
> > the start of the RAM it's needed to reserve some space. (example qcom SoC
> > that allocate reserved space for SMEM)
> > 
> > In the current implementation with appended DTB and AUTO_ZRELADDR,
> > the memory start is only derived from the PC register and it can't be
> > changed by declaring additional info in the DTS.
> > 
> > In a normal setup, we have an intentional undocumented chosen property
> > to handle this and the memory node to declare the start of the memory.
> > 
> > With this applied and ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT_IGNORE_MEM enabled (more 
> > info in the related patch) ipq806x can boot right away with AUTO_ZRELADDR
> > enabled and a correct memory node defined in DTS.
> > 
> > It's needed to ignore MEM ATAGs as most of the time the values from the
> > bootloader are hardcoded and OEM didn't care to actually provide them
> > resulting in funny situation where a Netgear R7800 with 512Mb of RAM
> > have Uboot passing 1.7GB of RAM with ATAGS.
> > 
> > While MEM ATAG may be broken, other ATAG like serial number or bootargs
> > might still be useful for partition declaration (cmdlinepart) or other
> > info hence DTB_COMPAT is still needed in these case and can't be
> > disabled.
> > 
> > I'm open to any suggestion on how this can be improved and I would love
> > some additional testing on other legacy platform but I assume this will
> > permit many legacy device to be correctly supported without having to
> > hardcode address.
> > 
> > Changes v2:
> > - Add Review and Ack Tags
> > - Use IS_ENABLED instead of global variable
> > 
> > Christian Marangi (2):
> >   ARM: decompressor: support memory start validation for appended DTB
> >   ARM: decompressor: add option to ignore MEM ATAGs
> > 
> >  arch/arm/Kconfig                        | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm/boot/compressed/atags_to_fdt.c |  4 ++++
> >  arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
> > 
> >
> 
> Any news for this?

Sorry for asking again... but any news for this?

I have also added the 2 patch here [1] [2].

Been in incoming from a long time and I have seen other patch getting
accepted. Did I do something wrong in submitting the 2 patch?

[1] https://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=9394/1
[2] https://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=9395/1

-- 
	Ansuel