netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 06/14] nvmem: core: introduce NVMEM layouts

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: <f79b7992-2170-bc31-74ca-4767ba870791@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 16:23:22 +0100
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/14] nvmem: core: introduce NVMEM layouts



On 30/08/2022 16:02, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2022-08-30 16:43, schrieb Srinivas Kandagatla:
> 
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/layouts/Makefile 
>>>>> b/drivers/nvmem/layouts/Makefile
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..6fdb3c60a4fa
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/layouts/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>> +#
>>>>> +# Makefile for nvmem layouts.
>>>>> +#
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h 
>>>>> b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
>>>>> index e710404959e7..323685841e9f 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
>>>>> @@ -127,6 +127,28 @@ struct nvmem_cell_table {
>>>>>       struct list_head    node;
>>>>>   };
>>>>>   +/**
>>>>> + * struct nvmem_layout - NVMEM layout definitions
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @name:        Layout name.
>>>>> + * @of_match_table:    Open firmware match table.
>>>>> + * @add_cells:        Will be called if a nvmem device is found which
>>>>> + *            has this layout. The function will add layout
>>>>> + *            specific cells with nvmem_add_one_cell().
>>>>> + * @node:        List node.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * A nvmem device can hold a well defined structure which can just be
>>>>> + * evaluated during runtime. For example a TLV list, or a list of 
>>>>> "name=val"
>>>>> + * pairs. A nvmem layout can parse the nvmem device and add 
>>>>> appropriate
>>>>> + * cells.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +struct nvmem_layout {
>>>>> +    const char *name;
>>>>> +    const struct of_device_id *of_match_table;
>>>>
>>>> looking at this, I think its doable to convert the existing
>>>> cell_post_process callback to layouts by adding a layout specific
>>>> callback here.
>>>
>>> can you elaborate on that?
>>
>> If we relax add_cells + add nvmem_unregister_layout() and update
>> struct nvmem_layout to include post_process callback like
>>
>> struct nvmem_layout {
>>     const char *name;
>>     const struct of_device_id *of_match_table;
>>     int (*add_cells)(struct nvmem_device *nvmem, struct nvmem_layout 
>> *layout);
>>     struct list_head node;
>>     /* default callback for every cell */
>>     nvmem_cell_post_process_t post_process;
>> };
>>
>> then we can move imx-ocotp to this layout style without add_cell
>> callback, and finally get rid of cell_process_callback from both
>> nvmem_config and nvmem_device.
>>
>> If layout specific post_process callback is available and cell does
>> not have a callback set then we can can be either updated cell
>> post_process callback with this one or invoke layout specific callback
>> directly.
>>
>> does that make sense?
> 
> Yes I get what you mean. BUT I'm not so sure; it mixes different
> things together. Layouts will add cells, analogue to
> nvmem_add_cells_from_of() or nvmem_add_cells_from_table(). With
> the hook above, the layout mechanism is abused to add post
> processing to cells added by other means.

We are still defining what layout exactly mean w.r.t to nvmem :-)

> 

There are two aspects to this as nvmem core is concerned

1> parse and add cells based on some provider specific algo/stucture.
2> post process cell data before user can see it.

In some cases we need 1 and 2 while in other cases we just need 1 or 2.

Having an unified interface would help with maintenance and removing 
duplication.

> What is then the difference to the driver having that "global"
> post process hook?

w.r.t post processing there should be no difference.

cell can have no post-processing or a default post processing or a 
specific one depending on its configuration.

> 
> The correct place to add the per-cell hook in this case would be
> nvmem_add_cells_from_of().

yes, that is the place where it should go. we have to work on the 
details but if provider is associated with a layout then this should be 
doable.


--srini
> 
> -michael