linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma

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]

Message-Id: <1169788181.3593.250.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:09:40 +0800
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable
	controllers

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 20:48 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Irq0 may _exist_. IO Port 0 may _exist_. Virtual address 0 may
> _exist_. 
> 
> Got it?
> 
> But they ARE NOT VALID THINGS FOR DRIVERS TO WORRY ABOUT.

I do understand what you're saying; there's no need to shout. I think
it's very misguided and leads to both internal inconsistency (as
demonstrated by the setup_irq() patch) and external inconsistency with
stuff like hardware documentation. But I _do_ understand what you're
saying.

> When a *DRIVER* sees a [zero], it's always a sign of "not here".

Except when it isn't. Like when it's a DMA address. Or a file
descriptor. Or a CPU number. Or one of numerous other things.

But still, I do understand what you're saying although I disagree with
your intention and your statement above is plain wrong (well, at least
my misquote of it is wrong -- you actually said 'NULL' which is fair
enough, but in the middle of a rant about _zero_ so I edited the quote
to say zero because that's what we're actually talking about).

> But they ARE NOT VALID THINGS FOR DRIVERS TO WORRY ABOUT.
 ...
> NO NORMAL USER SHOULD EVER SEE [zero] AS A REAL IO PORT. 

Yes, that much I understand. We disagree, but I understand you. My last
response was not intending to pursue that part of the discussion.

My question was about _how_ you think this should be achieved in this
particular case. You didn't like the suggestion that we should put your
new special-case hack into the resource code... where/how _do_ you
suggest that it's done, so that we can protect those poor driver authors
from the number zero?

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/