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]

Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 07:08:48 -0500
From:   Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.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"

On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> 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.

Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked closely with 
the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort, it became clear what 
configuration variables were missing to cause the x86 failures. Patch 2 
satisfies the requirement, and prevents the build problems found by the MIPS 
users. Both patches are needed in 4.17.

Larry