linux-kernel - [BUG] base: isa: ISA bus functionality not compiled for X86

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:00:03 -0500
From:	William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
To:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [BUG] base: isa: ISA bus functionality not compiled for X86_64
 architecture

Hello,

I'm developing drivers for devices accessible over a PC/104 bus (a bus
specification derived from ISA). Up until now I've used the
platform_driver structure in my drivers, but I believe it would be more
appropriate to use the isa_driver structure located in the
include/linux/isa.h file.

I discovered that the relevant ISA bus functions located in the
drivers/base/isa.c file are conditionally compiled based on the
CONFIG_ISA option declared in the arch/x86/Kconfig file. Unfortunately,
the CONFIG_ISA option can only be set to Y if the CONFIG_X86_32 option
is set to Y; I'm running a 64-bit X86 processor, so I naturally have
CONFIG_X86_32 set to N.

Would it be proper to remove the CONFIG_X86_32 dependency from the
CONFIG_ISA option? Motherboards with the PC/104 bus are effectively
motherboards with the ISA bus. Alternatively, I can submit a respective
pc104.c and pc104.h patch to implement a PC/104 bus driver, but it would
essentially be a virtually vertabim copy of the ISA bus implementation
(e.g. s/isa/pc104/g).

What are your thoughts?

Sincerely,

William Breathitt Gray