linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 8250: Don't restore NS16550 mode when console suspend is disabled

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090513011842.22d9cd6c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 01:18:42 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...xity.net>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8250: Don't restore NS16550 mode when console suspend
 is disabled

> Hmm. I already applied this, but then after looking closer, I undid that. 
> Why? It looks buggy:

I'm a bit suprised that as tty and serial maintainer this is the first
time I see the patch.

> Isn't that second test wrong? Should it not be
> 
> 	if ((up->capabilities & UART_NATSEMI) &&
> 		(console_suspend_enabled || !uart_console(&up->port)) {
> 
> instead?

The patch seems totally bogus anyway. If the console was in a high speed
mode it should be resumed in a high speed mode. What are the actual
details here.

Surely if my console is at 230Kbits/sec then resuming it at a totally
different speed is going to break things for people even if it happens to
help XO debug ?
--
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/