linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] Revert "ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in module"

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:   Sat, 12 May 2018 12:00:07 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] Revert "ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in
 module"

On 2018-05-12 10:01, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:50:42 +0300
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> 
>> Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net> writes:
>> 
>> > On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
>>  [...]
>> >>>
>> >>> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get
>> >>> into 4.17.
>> >>
>> >> How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting
>> >> patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's
>> >> more time for testing and waiting for feedback.
>> >
>> > Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked
>> > closely with the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort,
>> > it became clear what configuration variables were missing to cause the
>> > x86 failures. Patch 2 satisfies the requirement, and prevents the
>> > build problems found by the MIPS users. Both patches are needed in
>> > 4.17.
>> 
>> And I assume Michael is ok with this approach as well as I haven't 
>> heard
>> from him. I'll then push both of these to 4.17.
>> 
> 
> Yes, I'm OK with the patch, if we have a third patch that cleans up the
> PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY dependency by moving it to SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE
> where it belongs. (This doesn't need to go into the stable tree.)
> We currently implicitly get that via dependency chain, so this is OK
> for now as-is.

I'm planning to handle PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY cleanup once my patches hit
net-next.git and then wireless-drivers-next.git. It's to avoid
conflicts.