linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Differentiate SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the basis of the memory size.

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:	Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:22:27 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Cooper <ecc@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Differentiate SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the
 basis of the memory size.

On 07.04.2011 01:01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
>
>> On 06.04.2011 23:44, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is possible to differentiate a SheevaPlugs and DockStars on the basis
>>>> of the memory size.
>>>>
>>>> This makes it possible to unify both setup files.
>>>
>>> No no no !!!  This is an abomination!
>>>
>>> We are not going to reduce the amount of code under arch/arm/ with such
>>> fragile hacks.  This would create an even worse maintenance problem the
>>> day either of those devices is released with more RAM or whatever.
>>
>> DockStars are already obsolet and vanilla Linux was never supported by the
>> manufacturer (Seagate). And they never used the machine type in question.
>
> Is the code for DockStar in mainline actually useful?  If no then we may
> simply delete it.

I don't know, I can't speak for others.

>> So I don't think this in any way a fragile hack.
>
> Determining a machine type based on its amount of RAM is fragile, ugly
> and sets up a bad example for even more hacky tricks like this to crop
> up. If someone is experimenting with his SheevaPlug by giving different
> memory information in the kernel cmdline e.g. to create memory holes in
> order to test some memory allocator changes, then the kernel may think
> that it is not running on a SheevaPlug but a DockStar, and the resulting
> behavior will certainly be unexpected.

People doing such should now what they do. And the pr_info() in the 
"abomination" should be enough to give those experimenters a hint (if it 
is missing or new).

>> Anyway, it was just a suggestion.
>
> Better luck next time.

Sorry, I don't feel the need to waste my time prodcuing patches to get 
them called "abominations". Which means my willingness to post further 
patches just got below zero.

Regards,

Alexander
--
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/