linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86: Consolidate 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:22:52 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jailhouse-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86: Consolidate PCI_MMCONFIG configs

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:45:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
> > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
> >
> > Not sure if those two worked by design or just by chance so far. In any
> > case, it's at least cleaner and clearer to express this in a single
> > config statement.

It would be nice if this were a complete statement of what the patch
does, but without the subject, it's not.  E.g., as I'm composing this
response in an editor window, I can't see the subject, so it seems
incomplete.

> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 +++------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > index eb7f43f23521..63e85e7da12e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > @@ -2641,8 +2641,9 @@ config PCI_DIRECT
> >         depends on PCI && (X86_64 || (PCI_GODIRECT || PCI_GOANY || PCI_GOOLPC || PCI_GOMMCONFIG))
> >
> >  config PCI_MMCONFIG
> > -       def_bool y
> > -       depends on X86_32 && PCI && (ACPI || SFI) && (PCI_GOMMCONFIG || PCI_GOANY)
> > +       bool "Support mmconfig PCI config space access" if X86_64
> > +       default y
> > +       depends on PCI && (ACPI || SFI) && (PCI_GOMMCONFIG || PCI_GOANY || X86_64)
> 
> Looking to the above context I would rather put it like
> 
> depends on PCI && (ACPI || SFI) && (X86_64 || (PCI_GOANY || PCI_GOMMCONFIG))

The changelog doesn't point out any intended functional change, but I
think both these proposals add some new configs that previously could
not occur, e.g.,

  CONFIG_X86_64=y
  CONFIG_SFI=y
  # CONFIG_ACPI is unset
  CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG=y

If this is intended, the changelog should mention it.