linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [TULIP] Check the return value from pci_set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:34:48 -0600
From:	Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Val Henson <val_henson@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [TULIP] Check the return value from pci_set_mwi()

On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:59:57PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The unmodified tulip driver checks both MWI and cacheline-size because 
> one of the clones (PNIC or PNIC2) will let you set the MWI bit, but 
> hardwires cacheline size to zero.

Maybe the generic pci_set_mwi() can verify cacheline size is non-zero?
I don't think each driver should need to enforce this.

> If the arches do not behave consistently, we need to keep the check in 
> the tulip driver, to avoid incorrectly programming the csr0 MWI bit.

Why not fix the arches to be consistent?
There's alot more drivers than arches...and we have control
of the arch specific PCI support.

thanks,
grant
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/