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, 16 Aug 2018 16:26:40 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jchandra@...adcom.com, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: how to fix acpi_pci_root_remap_iospace?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:10:33PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Another way would be to add
> 
>  #include <asm-generic/io.h>
> +#undef PCI_IOBASE
> 
> in your asm/io.h. This is about as ugly as the your version, but
> it would be local to ia64 ;-)

Third way ...


Is "0" actually the right value for PCI_IOBASE for some platform?

#ifndef PCI_IOBASE
#define PCI_IOBASE ((void __iomem *)0)
#endif

Or is this just here to make sure that:

static inline u8 inb(unsigned long addr)
{
        u8 val;

        __io_pbr();
        val = __raw_readb(PCI_IOBASE + addr);
        __io_par();
        return val;
}

etc. Do not throw errors?

Should we really just enclose all of inb, inw, inl, ...
inside of:

#ifdef PCI_IOBASE

... all those static functions that use PCI_IOBASE ...

#endif


-Tony

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ