linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] ARM64 LPC: Indirect ISA port IO introduced

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:   Tue, 08 Nov 2016 23:35:27 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, liviu.dudau@....com,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, minyard@....org,
        xuwei5@...ilicon.com, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        zhichang.yuan02@...il.com, olof@...om.net, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, kantyzc@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "zhichang.yuan" <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>, zourongrong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] ARM64 LPC: Indirect ISA port IO introduced

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 4:49:49 PM CET Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:33:44PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > On 08/11/2016 16:12, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:47:07AM +0800, zhichang.yuan wrote:

> > >Is there no way to make this slightly more generic, so that it can be
> > >re-used elsewhere? For example, if struct extio_ops was common, then
> > >you could have the singleton (which maybe should be an interval tree?),
> > >type definition, setter function and the BUILD_EXTIO invocations
> > >somewhere generic, rather than squirelled away in the arch backend.
> > >
> > The concern would be that some architecture which uses generic higher-level
> > ISA accessor ops, but have IO space, could be affected.
> 
> You're already adding a Kconfig symbol for this stuff, so you can keep
> that if you don't want it on other architectures. I'm just arguing that
> plumbing drivers directly into arch code via arm64_set_extops is not
> something I'm particularly fond of, especially when it looks like it
> could be avoided with a small amount of effort.

Agreed, I initially suggested putting this into arch/arm64/, but there isn't
really a reason why it couldn't just live in lib/ with the header file
bits moved to include/asm-generic/io.h which we already use.

	Arnd