linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] Revert "ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in module"

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: <87bmdmcxf6.fsf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 13:13:33 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>,
        Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>,
        "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] Revert "ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in module"

Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> writes:

> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>>
>> This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e.
>>
>> Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol
>> SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being
>> selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost
>> mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario
>> to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards.
>>
>> This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards.
>>
>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349
>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>
> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get
> into 4.17.

How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting
patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's
more time for testing and waiting for feedback.

-- 
Kalle Valo