linux-kernel - Re: x86/hwmon: conditionalize coretemp's dependency on PCI

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: <4CA0AE5E0200007800019097@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:46:54 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Guenter Roeck" <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Cc:	"r.marek@...embler.cz" <r.marek@...embler.cz>,
	"fenghua.yu@...el.com" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"khali@...ux-fr.org" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86/hwmon: conditionalize coretemp's dependency on PCI

>>> On 27.09.10 at 14:16, Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:08:50AM -0400, Jan Beulich wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> >>  
>> >>  config SENSORS_CORETEMP
>> >>  	tristate "Intel Core/Core2/Atom temperature sensor"
>> >> -	depends on X86 && PCI && EXPERIMENTAL
>> >> +	depends on X86 && EXPERIMENTAL
>> >> +	depends on PCI || (!MATOM && !GENERIC_CPU && !X86_GENERIC)
>> >>  	help
>> >>  	  If you say yes here you get support for the temperature
>> >>  	  sensor inside your CPU. Most of the family 6 CPUs
>> > 
>> > Resending my reply to this one as well. Again, apologies if there is 
>> > duplication.
>> > 
>> > The coretemp code unconditionally calls pci functions, even if PCI is not 
>> > defined.
>> > I am concerned that this might cause problems. It might be better to stick 
>> > with
>> > the more generic dependency instead of trying to optimize too much.
>> 
>> pci.h takes care to define stub inline functions for the !CONFIG_PCI
>> case. It seemed largely odd for a driver like this to depend on PCI
>> at all, and hence I think it is more transparent to make the needs
>> explicit.
>> 
> Seems to me the dependency should not exist in the first place, then.
> Otherwise, the driver would still be disabled for GENERIC_CPU, which isn't
> good either.

Oh, not having a dependency on PCI at all would be even better.
I didn't dare to suggest that.

> Are there examples of other drivers which are not defining the PCI 
> dependency
> but are conditionally calling pci functions ?

I'm not aware of any, but also didn't explicitly look for such.

Jan

--
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/