linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix CONFIG

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:	Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:13:47 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix CONFIG_PCI=n compile failure

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:18:03 -0500
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 07:08 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:01:46 -0500
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is obviously some strange definition of the word "right" of
> > > which I was previously unaware.  That patch moves forbid_dac plus
> > > a load of quirk processing (also for a PCI bus) out from under
> > > CONFIG_PCI only ... which will fix the compile error, sure.
> > > 
> > > However, if you'd be so kind, please explain how a DAC (meaning
> > > Dual Addressing Cycle on the PCI bus) is useful (or even can be
> > > effected) without a PCI bus?
> > > 
> > > All its really doing is contaminating pci-dma.c with clutter that
> > > only needs to be there because someone can't get the separation
> > > right.o
> > >
> > 
> > why do you even want that file for CONFIG_PCI=n ??
> 
> Um, my fault from long ago.  It's contaminated with the dma_ API
> pieces that are bus generic.
> 
> The correct solution, I think, is to split it out into a bus generic
> piece and a PCI specific piece.  

agreed

> I think all the intel/amd IOMMU stuff
> should be in the PCI specific piece ... although I know there's a
> theoretical case where the AMD iommu can be ht bus only with no PCI
> bus, I don't think anyone's built such a beast, in which case it's
> safe to condition iommu presence on CONFIG_PCI?

I would think that's not relevant; AMD seems to have PCI in it's cpu
package already, never mind what it is connected to.



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/