linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] net: phy: Introduce a port representation

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: <1b2cb926-803f-4440-9c6c-54e3d7bdcf04@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:13:42 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
	Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
	Nicolò Veronese <nicveronese@...il.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, mwojtas@...omium.org,
	Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] net: phy: Introduce a port
 representation

> What I think we both fear is having a complex DT description of a
> port that the kernel mostly ignores. While we can come out with the
> "but DT describes the hardware" claptrap, it's no good trying to
> describe the hardware in a firmware description unless there is some
> way to validate that the firmware description is correct - which
> means there must be something that depends on it in order to work.
> 
> If we describe stuff that doesn't get used, there's no way to know
> if it is actually correct. We then end up with a lot of buggy DT
> descriptions with properties that can't be relied upon to be
> correct, and that makes those properties utterly useless.

This is a real issue we have had in the past. A property which was
ignored, until it was not ignored, and then lots of boards broke
because they had the property wrong.

I would strongly recommend than any property you define is always
used, validated, and ideally will not work when wrong.

      Andrew