linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] IA64 Compilation Error Fix for Intel IOMMU Identity Mapping Support

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:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:11:26 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	fenghua.yu@...el.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	tony.luck@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IA64 Compilation Error Fix for Intel IOMMU Identity
 Mapping Support

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:48 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> This patch is really ugly; adds another ifdef and VT-D specific code
> to the generic place (arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c).
> 
> However, I guess that we need to live with this for now since this
> fixes the build error.

It raises the question: Why are we using firmware-specific interfaces to
list the available memory -- can't we get that from somewhere _generic_?

The less we tie our code to these crappy BIOS, EFI and ACPI interfaces,
the better off we'll be.

> Another complaint from me is that, IIRC, the patch causes this build
> error was posted was posted first during the merge window (18 June)
> and merged few days later without properly reviewed (or compile
> tested).

I apologise for that. I got to it rather late, just as I was reviewing
my outstanding code for Linus to pull. It _had_ been reviewed though --
this was the second incarnation of the patch, after review.

I didn't include it in my original pull request, and instead let it sit
in linux-next for a day (which is not long, I know, but better than
nothing). I then spent that day testing it myself, and tracking down a
bug in it.

I sent the fixed version to Linus at the end of the day -- I _thought_
I would have been told of any IA64 build failures in linux-next by then,
even if the original hadn't been tested on IA64 -- evidently I was
wrong.

I really must set myself up an IA64 cross-compiler. Every time I've
looked at that so far I've got distracted into the whole "why is
GCC/glibc build so incestuously broken" quagmire -- but I only need gcc,
so I'll steel myself to ignore the braindamage and just build a simple
compiler without glibc support.

Better still would be if I could find some IA64 hardware with this
IOMMU. Would kind of help with maintenance...

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com                              Intel Corporation

--
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/