On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:37:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ayush, > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 at 21:14, Ayush Singh <ayush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > # Challenges > > > > ## Security > > > > The concerns regarding security seemed to show up in the other > > proposals. There was a proposal to have a devicetree property to > > allow/deny the application of overlays in some nodes, with default being > > deny. Was it insufficient? > > This is the most important issue: using DT overlays, you can change > about anything. There is no protection yet to limit this to e.g. the > expansion connectors on your board. Right. > This is what the various WIP "connector" abstractions are trying > to solve. Exactly. > > ## Memory Leaks > > > > Currently, updating/removing properties leaks memory. Was it one of the > > reasons for the rejection of previous proposals? > > IMO this is a minor issue. I am sure this can be improved upon. We just > need some way to keep track of which properties are part of the initial > FDT (and thus can't be freed), and which were allocated dynamically. Somewhat related to this, "unapplying" a DT overlay is not a natural operation, but we need it for a sane update interface. The normal way of applying overlays is a lossy process. Obviously, it's possible to make it reversible by keeping around enough undo information, but it's kind of a hack. -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
