linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: qcom-soc: simplify SoC-matching patterns

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: <sjayaro5coievz22gdeu6tplzjs6kju333a6womyuk6bsvw2h5@a5ewi6sdl7wj>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:52:48 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
	Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: qcom-soc: simplify SoC-matching
 patterns

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:37:23AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/11/2024 08:47, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:49:22AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> The patterns for individual SoC families grew up to be pretty complex,
> >>> containing lots of special cases and optional suffixes. Split them per
> >>> the suffix to make it easier to extend SoC patterns.
> >>
> >> This is doing something quite different - split is not important here.
> >> Instead you narrow the patterns significantly and disallow things like
> >> msm8994pro, sc8280p or sc8280px, and allow things like sa5200p.
> > 
> > Just for the sake of correctness, msm8994pro is still allowed, if I'm
> > not mistaken.
> > 
> >> I don't see here much of pattern simplifying - dropping (pro)? really
> >> makes little difference.
> > 
> > Patterns are simplified by being explicit. E.g. in the previous
> > iteration I completely didn't notice the intersection of the |p that I
> > have added with the existing [a-z][a-z]? pattern. If you think that
> > sa5200p should be disallowed, I can tune the numeric part of the
> > pattern. And sc8280p / sc8280px should not be allowed in the first
> > place, such platforms don't exist.
> 
> I am fine with this, but extend the commit msg with some good rationale.
> Have in mind that the point of this pattern was *not* to validate SoCs
> names. sa5200p is fine, sc8180p is fine and all others are fine, sc8280z
> as well, because we do not want to grow this pattern with every new model.
> 
> The only, single point of this entire binding is to disallow incorrect
> order of block names in compatible. Not validate the SoC names. If you
> need narrower patterns to achieve that objective, sure. If you need
> narrower patterns to validate SoC names, then nope.

I need narrower patterns to simplify adding new SoCs.
Another option is to define a mega-pattern like
qcom,(msm|sm|sd[am]|.....)[0-9]+[a-z]*-.* . Frankly speaking I'm fine
with that approach too.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry