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  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, 7 Oct 2010 20:22:45 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <>
To:	Felipe Contreras <>
Cc:	linux-main <>,
	linux-arm <>,
	Arnd Hannemann <>,
	Han Jonghun <>,
	Uwe Kleine-K├Ânig 
	<>, Hemant Pedanekar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow, but warn, when issuing ioremap() on RAM

On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:44:22PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Many drivers are broken, and there's no alternative in sight. Such a big
> change should stay as a warning for now, and only later should it
> actually fail.
> The drivers are not doing something correct, we get it, but for now it's
> better to allow them to work (they do 99% of the time anyway) rather
> than to force everyone to revert this patch in their internal trees
> until there's a solution. A slightly broken functionality is better than
> no functionality at all.
> A warning lets people know that what they are doing is not right, and
> they should fix it.

So what are _you_ going to do to fix these drivers?  Continue reverting
this patch?  Or are you just going to ignore the issue entirely?

Unless people can come up with a plan to fix their drivers using ioremap
on system RAM thereby violating the architecture specification, I'm
_not_ going to apply this patch.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists