linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [TULIP] Check the return value from pci_set

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, 07 Oct 2006 10:44:18 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
CC:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Val Henson <val_henson@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [TULIP] Check the return value from pci_set_mwi()

Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:59:57PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> The unmodified tulip driver checks both MWI and cacheline-size because 
>> one of the clones (PNIC or PNIC2) will let you set the MWI bit, but 
>> hardwires cacheline size to zero.
> 
> Maybe the generic pci_set_mwi() can verify cacheline size is non-zero?
> I don't think each driver should need to enforce this.

Agreed.


>> If the arches do not behave consistently, we need to keep the check in 
>> the tulip driver, to avoid incorrectly programming the csr0 MWI bit.
> 
> Why not fix the arches to be consistent?
> There's alot more drivers than arches...and we have control
> of the arch specific PCI support.

Agreed.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/