linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] dpt_i2o: use proper pci driver

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, 17 Feb 2016 21:20:03 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions <aacraid@...ptec.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] dpt_i2o: use proper pci driver

On Wednesday 17 February 2016 07:57 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:50:14 +0530
> Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a pci device but was not done in the usual way a pci driver is
>> done. Convert the driver into a proper pci driver.
>
> This looks completely wrong. Please read the I2O 1.5 specification
> document before playing with that code. You can't simply convert it to a
> standard PCI driver as all the IOPs are supposed to be detected and then
> the correct initialization sequence executed across the set of IOPs. IOPs
> are allowed to talk to one another and the system table binds it all
> together.

Yes, thanks for letting me know about the spec. It is saying
"The host locates each IOP, adds it
to the system configuration table, and initializes the IOP’s outbound 
message queue. The host then
provides each IOP with a list of all IOPs and the physical location of 
their inbound message queue."

>
> If you do hot plug then you need to follow the specification and do
> all the extra notifications. Unless you've got multiple FC909/FC920
> fibechannel cards or similar to test with I would just leave this well
> alone.

point noted.

> Your original simple patch is *MUCH* safer in this specific case.

The original patch is already having NACK from Johannes. So i better 
leave this code here.

regards
sudip