| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150521222655.GF32152@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:26:55 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc: tomi.valkeinen@...com, airlied@...ux.ie,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Antonino Daplas <adaplas@...il.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@....fi>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com,
david.vrabel@...rix.com, jbeulich@...e.com,
Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:08:10PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> ...
> --- a/lib/pci_iomap.c
> +++ b/lib/pci_iomap.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,46 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap_range);
>
> /**
> + * pci_iomap_wc_range - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @offset: map memory at the given offset in BAR
> + * @maxlen: max length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR from offset to the end, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
> + int bar,
> + unsigned long offset,
> + unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> + resource_size_t start = pci_resource_start(dev, bar);
> + resource_size_t len = pci_resource_len(dev, bar);
> + unsigned long flags = pci_resource_flags(dev, bar);
> +
> + if (len <= offset || !start)
> + return NULL;
> + len -= offset;
> + start += offset;
> + if (maxlen && len > maxlen)
> + len = maxlen;
> + if (flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> + return NULL;
> + if (flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> + return ioremap_wc(start, len);
> + /* What? */
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc_range);
> +
> +/**
> * pci_iomap - create a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> * @bar: BAR number
> @@ -70,4 +110,25 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
> return pci_iomap_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap);
> +
> +/**
> + * pci_iomap_wc - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @maxlen: length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR without checking for its length first, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> + return pci_iomap_wc_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc);
Huh. So you let me talk about marking the unused pcim_iomap_wc()
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), but didn't remind me that you also proposed to mark
the symbol you really care about, the one you already have a use for, as
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). Sigh.
In my opinion, if we're going to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() at all, we should
use it consistently and based on technical considerations. I base this on
statements like the following:
- "[EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()] implies that the function is considered an
internal implementation issue, and not really an interface." [Rusty
Russell, 1]
- "... using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal
interface ..." [Linus Torvalds, 2]
- "Anything exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is considered by the author
to be so fundamental to the kernel that using it would be impossible
without creating a derivative work." [Matthew Garrett, 3]
- "Linus's initial point for [_GPL symbols] has been so diluted by random
lobby groups asking for every symbol to be _GPL that they are becoming
effectively pointless now." [Dave Airlie, 4]
Existing interfaces like these are exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL():
ioremap()
ioremap_wc()
ioremap_prot()
pci_iomap()
pci_map_rom()
I would argue that pci_iomap_wc() is similar in spirit and is no more an
internal implementation issue than they are, and should be exported
similarly.
So my *advice* is to use EXPORT_SYMBOL() in this case, because that's a
choice you can defend on technical grounds. I think it's hard to argue
that pci_iomap_wc() is so fundamental or unique to Linux that a caller
would automatically be a derivative work.
Will I still merge it as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()? Maybe. I don't feel *good*
about it because the only explanation I can give is "the author wanted it
that way," and that's unsatisfying. But I did already ack it (before I
noticed the _GPL() issue), and I won't try to retract that and prevent
somebody else from merging it. And maybe your proposal to clarify the
kernel-hacking.tmpl language will convince me.
Bjorn
[1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b6c17ea4eff3
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Pine.LNX.4.64.0510050742550.31407@g5.osdl.org
[3] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/31357.html
[4] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAPM=9tzsT+nah2P-qZ8iKW=aTZJzYgm18mMWyy2-RVkoOSwyjg@mail.gmail.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists