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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:31:58 -0400
From:	William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, jic23@...nel.org,
	knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net, wim@...ana.be,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, gnurou@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] iio: stx104: Change STX104 dependency to ISA_BUS

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:45:03PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>This means for this and other similar drivers that the driver is no longer
>supported on architectures which support ISA but not the newly introduced
>ISA_BUS. Affected architectures are alpha, arm, m32r, m68k, mips, powerpc,
>and parisc.
>
>A typical example is SCSI_AHA1542, which is no longer supported on those
>architectures. It builds, but isa_register_driver() will be a dummy and fail.
>Actually, this is true for _all_ drivers calling isa_register_driver().
>
>I hope this is understood and doesn't cause any problems.
>
>Thanks,
>Guenter

That's a good catch. I overlooked this when I submitted the ISA_BUS
patch; I had improperly assumed the ISA option to have a dependency on
X86_32 based on arch/x86/Kconfig. The intention of the ISA_BUS is to
allow the proper definition of the isa_register_driver and
isa_unregister_driver functions without the dependency on X86_32 (e.g.
on X86_64 systems). How can this be resolved without ending support for
ISA on these other architectures? Would it be appropriate to add the
ISA_BUS dependency to every "config ISA" block for the other
architectures?

My avoidance of making ISA a selection of ISA_BUS is the possibility of
an invalid configuration: a user may initially enable ISA_BUS, then
later disable ISA, resulting in ISA_BUS remaining enabled without ISA
selected.

As a side note, should the dummy isa_register_driver return 0? Would it
be more appropriate for it to return an error code to indicate lack of
support for ISA, rather than silently fail?

William Breathitt Gray

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ