linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] reset: handle RESET_GPIO better to provide the fallback

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: <ee8db6df-76e2-497d-8718-b0ce5affff05@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 16:26:06 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] reset: handle RESET_GPIO better to provide the
 fallback

On 03/11/2025 16:23, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> You removed RFC and entire rationale. Your earlier commit - 690de2902dca
>> - is broken. You must not do that.
> 
> Wojciech was told to do exactly what he did. Dunno by whom, I trusted
> that after seeing the handling code in reset core. Is the required
> fallback documented somewhere?

Yes, by stable ABI document and by standard rule - we never break the users.

That commit for which I sent revert effectively breaks that rule -
affects the users.

> 
>> Broken 690de2902dca leads to this broken patchset, but that is not a
>> correct fix. You need to fix the source - revert 690de2902dca, because
>> it is obviously wrong. You MUST ave fallback to reset-gpios, that was
>> the entire concept how this driver was written.
> 
> What is the benefit of having reset-gpios handling in the reset core
> optionally and required as a fallback?

Stable ABI rules require that, it is not about "benefits". Please send
email to Linus and ask him: "can I make a change which breaks users of ABI".

> 
> What is the drawback of having this tiny driver in the core and provide

If you have squashed the patchset, instead of making this non-bisectable
mess, it would be fine. But because you made it non-bisectable and only
one part got to the kernel - ALL USERS are affected and their boards broken.

See four reports from Marek Szyprowski.

Best regards,
Krzysztof