Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] mtd: ubi: add support for protecting critical volumes

From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
Cc: chengzhihao1 <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>,
	 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	 Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>, robh <robh@kernel.org>,
	 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>,
	 linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	 devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	 linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] mtd: ubi: add support for protecting critical volumes
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:54:07 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1249604143.124110.1727726047386.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zvr-hOM2DfveaqeC@makrotopia.org>

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Daniel Golle" <daniel@makrotopia.org>
>> like a ubirmvol ... --i-know-what-im-doing.
> 
> True, enforcement doesn't need to happen in kernel (though I think it's
> nicer, but really just a matter of taste, I guess). ubi-tools would still
> need to be able to recognize critical volumes somehow, and that could be
> done by checking if the 'volume-is-critical' property is present in
> /sys/class/ubi/ubi*_*/of_node/

Exactly.
I also don't mind adding a in-memory 'volume-is-critical' property to
UBI directly. I'm just a little hesitated to change the UAPI or the on-disk
data structures for this features.

> If you prefer going down that road instead I will work on patches for
> git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git instead.

Yes. When done in userspace, it's also much easier to offer the --i-know-what-im-doing
flag to still remove a critical volume.
No need to touch UAPI.

Zhihao Cheng, what do you think about this approach?

Thanks,
//richard

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/