| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f19298770802261632y4406efc5p1c678c6ef6504c2f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:32:21 +0300 From: "Alexey Zaytsev" <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com> To: "Michael Buesch" <mb@...sch.de> Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Alexey Zaytsev" <zaytsev.a@...tei.ru>, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch) On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 01:23:17 Alexey Zaytsev wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:47 AM, John W. Linville > > <linville@...driver.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:12:32AM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Besides that the bcm43xx driver is not broken. That's the whole reason > > > > > this damn thread started at all. So it can't be broken. > > > > > > > > > Can't agree here. The bcm43xx driver used to work with 2.6.23 without requiring > > > > any module magic. > > > > > > At the risk of prolonging things... :-( > > > > > > Isn't the fundamental problem here that the ssb driver claims the same > > > PCI IDs as the bcm43xx driver? He have hit this same issue a number > > > of times: 8139too vs. 8139cp, eepro vs. e100, sk98lin vs. skge, > > > and I'm sure there are more. I admit that this situation is a bit > > > more confusing, since the user is less likely to predict a conflict > > > between bcm43xx and the ssb driver. This is especially true since > > > the user isn't even selecting ssb directly, but is instead selecting > > > the apparently unrelated b44. > > > > > > Still, the bcm43xx driver is not fundamentally damaged. This is > > > fundamentally a "two drivers claiming the same PCI ID" issue, not a > > > "you broke my driver" one. > > > > Is there any reason the ssb driver should claim the bcm43xx pci ids in > > the first place? I have very little understanding what the Sonic Silicon > > Backplane really is, but I see that the b44 driver claims its PCI ids > > directly. I also think I understand why the b43/b43legacy drivers can't > > claim the ids directly: because the driver-device matching is done not > > with the pci bus methods, but with the ssb bus methods, and it would > > be impossible to automatically choose the right driver for the right > > device (with same ssb ids), as the first of the two drivers loaded would > > succeed in probe()'ing the pci "ssb bridge" device, and not letting the > > other to take control, even after moments later the ssb probe for the > > non-supported ssb device would fail. (Or am I completely wrong?) > > > > That said, I still think that the ssb driver claims the wrong pci ids, > > which is especially wrong if the the b43/b43legacy drivers are not > > even built. And my patch fixes exactly this problem - the ssb driver > > no more claims the broadcom pci ids, when the b43/b43legacy drivers > > are not built. > > > > One better solution I think might be to move the b43_pci_bridge.c > > code to a separate module, and let the b43/b43legacy drivers > > depend on it, but as I said, I have little knowledge in the > > ssb stuff, so I did it the easy way. > > See the comment in b43_pci_bridge.c > Yes, I've seen it. And this design, kind of, causes me some trouble. ^ > -- > Greetings Michael. > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists