linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/14] of: reserved-memory: Fix using wrong number of cells to get property 'alignment'

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: <67308adf-65bd-489c-80cb-5354ef202b51@icloud.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:52:13 +0800
From: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: William McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>,
 Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
 Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann@...xeda.com>,
 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
 Oreoluwa Babatunde <quic_obabatun@...cinc.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/14] of: reserved-memory: Fix using wrong number of
 cells to get property 'alignment'

On 2025/2/27 05:30, Rob Herring wrote:
>>    this change ?
> We don't know that unless you tested every dts file. We only know that
> no one has reported an issue yet.
> 

Sorry, my mistake to post the question here for convenience.

actually, i want to ask William this question, and he/she shared applet
of the downstream code.

> Even if we did test everything, there are DT's that aren't in the
> kernel tree. It's not like this downstream DT is using some
> undocumented binding or questionable things. It's a standard binding.
> 

IMO, that may be a downstream bug since they don't refer to binding spec
to set property 'alignment'.

> Every time this code is touched, it breaks. This is not even the only
> breakage right now[1].
> 

indeed.

>> 2) IMO, the spec may be right.
>>    The type of size is enough to express any alignment wanted.
>>    For several kernel allocators. type of 'alignment' should be the type
>>    of 'size', NOT the type of 'address'
> As I said previously, it can be argued either way.
> 
> Rob
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250226115044.zw44p5dxlhy5eoni@pengutronix.de/