On 11/29/17 04:20, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 11/27/17 15:58, Alan Tull wrote: >> Here's a proposal for a whitelist to lock down the dynamic device tree. >> >> For an overlay to be accepted, all of its targets are required to be >> on a target node whitelist. >> >> Currently the only way I have to get on the whitelist is calling a >> function to add a node. That works for fpga regions, but I think >> other uses will need a way of having adding specific nodes from the >> base device tree, such as by adding a property like 'allow-overlay;' >> or 'allow-overlay = "okay";' If that is acceptable, I could use some >> advice on where that particular code should go. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Tull (2): >> of: overlay: add whitelist >> fpga: of region: add of-fpga-region to whitelist >> >> drivers/fpga/of-fpga-region.c | 9 ++++++ >> drivers/of/overlay.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/of.h | 12 +++++++ >> 3 files changed, 94 insertions(+) >> > > The plan was to use connectors to restrict where an overlay could be applied. > I would prefer not to have multiple methods for accomplishing the same thing > unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Going back one level in my thinking, I don't think that having a driver mark a node as a location where an overlay fragment can be applied is serving a useful purpose. Any driver, including any driver loaded as a module, could mark a node as ok. I don't see how this is providing any meaningful restriction on where an overlay fragment can be applied. -Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
