linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-mm1

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: <20080421110536.44251eb2@ephemeral>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:05:36 -0400
From:	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>
To:	Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@....com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, jfannin@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-mm1

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:56:19 -0600
Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@....com> wrote:

> On 19/04/08 13:50 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:38:33 -0700
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:25:44 -0400 Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:29:25 -0700
> > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:10:24 -0400 Joseph Fannin <jfannin@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:47:57AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > which we probably just shouldn't do this at all unless we're running on the
> > > > > OLPC hardware.  But we need to do this to find out if we're running on the OLPC
> > > > > hardware!  Perhaps the warning should just be removed.
> > > > 
> > > > Hm.  We could either protect that code with an:
> > > > 
> > > > if (!is_geode())
> > > >   return;
> > > > 
> > > > Or I could add the OpenFirmware patches which would allow us to get
> > > > rid of this code, and instead check for the existence of OFW using
> > > > that.
> > > > 
> > > > The former is quick and easy; the latter is (imo) nicer, so long as
> > > > people don't have problems w/ the OFW code.  :)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Do both ;)
> > > 
> > > The quick-n-easy version sounds suitable for now.
> > 
> > Heh, I already had sent the nicer version.  If people have some fundamental
> > problem w/ it, I can send the quick-n-easy version.
> 
> I prefer the nicer version.  It is not a good policy IMHO to wrap OLPC
> specfic code with is_geode() and friends.  Even by Geode standards, we've
> abused the code greatly for the benefit of the Geode, and few of those
> abuses would translate very well even to the general Geode community.  I 
> would prefer that we use the is_olpc() and #ifdef wrappers to ensure
> that the code that is exclusively OLPC stays exclusively OLPC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jordan
> 

Yeah, like I said; the nicer version is the _correct_ way to do things.  I
just fear that the OFW code isn't ready for merging (see hpa's concerns).

The code is already #ifdef'd (the original reporter had enabled
CONFIG_OLPC), and the code in question is what determines what is_olpc()
should return.  is_geode() is just to narrow the scope of what hardware
the check runs on.




-- 
Need a kernel or Debian developer?  Contact me, I'm looking for contracts.
--
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/