On Tue 10 Mar 08:38 PDT 2020, Cl?ment Leger wrote:

Hi Mathieu,

----- On 10 Mar, 2020, at 16:20, Mathieu Poirier mathieu.poirier@linaro.org wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:00:05PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

quoted

On Tue 03 Mar 00:02 PST 2020, Cl?ment Leger wrote:

quoted

Hi Bjorn,

----- On 3 Mar, 2020, at 00:13, Bjorn Andersson bjorn.andersson@linaro.org
wrote:

quoted

On Mon 02 Mar 01:38 PST 2020, Clement Leger wrote:

quoted

Since this function will be modified to support both elf32 and elf64,
rename the existing one to elf32 (which is the only supported format
at the moment). This will allow not to introduce possible side effect
when adding elf64 support (ie: all backends will still support only
elf32 if not requested explicitely using rproc_elf_sanity_check).

Is there a reason for preventing ELF64 binaries be loaded?

I decided to go this way to let driver maintainer decide if they want
to support elf64 to avoid problems with 64bits addresses/sizes which do
not fit in their native type (size_t for instance). This is probably
not going to happen and there are additionnal checks before calling
rproc_da_to_va. And addresses should be filtered by rproc_da_to_va.
So, actually it seems there is no reason to forbid supporting elf32/64
for all drivers.

I was hoping to hear some additional feedback on this from others.

I didn't follow up on this one because I agreed with your assesment and didn't
think it was needed.

Simply put I would rather see rproc_elf_sanity_check() gain support for elf64
and let the platform code decide what to do with format they don't support
rather than spinning a new function.

quoted

I've merge the patch as is, but think it would be nice to clean this up
and just have the driver ignore if fed a 32 or 64-elf.

It would be really nice to see this cleaned up in time for the coming merge
window...

I could have sent a V7, but Bjorn was faster than my comment ;)

I figured it had been maturing on the list long enough and expected the
cleanup to be a nice incremental patch.

Bjorn, Is there any way to revert that or it's already pushed ?
I already have a clean V7.

Please base your changes on what's in rproc-next (and today's
linux-next).

Thank you,
Bjorn

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel