linux-kernel - Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928

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: <20180507204317.52992b6c@wiggum>
Date:   Mon, 7 May 2018 20:43:17 +0200
From:   Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928

On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:44:34 -0500
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net> wrote:

> Although commit 882164a4a928 ("ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in 
> module") appeared to be harmless, it leads to complete failure of drivers b43. 

>   config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE
>          bool
> -       depends on SSB_PCIHOST && SSB = y
> +       depends on SSB_PCIHOST && (SSB = y || !MIPS)
>          default y
> 
>   config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10161131/

Could we _please_ switch to not applying patches to ssb or b43, if
nobody acked (or better reviewed) a patch?

We had multiple changes to ssb and b43 in the recent past that did not
have a review at all and broke something. I don't think such software
quality is acceptable at all.
So please revert 882164a4a928.

I'm sorry that this patch slipped through the cracks of my inbox.
But the reaction to that shall not be to just apply the patch. It
shall be to resubmit it for review.

But back to the technical topic.
I don't remember why SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE depends on SSB_PCIHOST.
But that looks and feels wrong.

I would say it should rather look like

config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE
	depends on SSB && (PCI = y || PCI = SSB)

completely untested, though.

-- 
Michael

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped