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@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:00:05PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >> On Tue 03 Mar 00:02 PST 2020, Cl?ment Leger wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Bjorn, > >> > > >> > ----- On 3 Mar, 2020, at 00:13, Bjorn Andersson bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Mon 02 Mar 01:38 PST 2020, Clement Leger wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> 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. > > > >> > >> 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
