linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial: 8250: Default SERIAL_OF_PLATFORM to SERIAL

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: <20181220152111.GB17408@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:21:11 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: 8250: Default SERIAL_OF_PLATFORM to SERIAL_8250

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 05:11:25PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:26:06AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > It is way too easy to miss enabling SERIAL_OF_PLATFORM which would
> > result in the inability for the kernel to have a valid console device,
> > which can be seen with:
> > 
> > Warning: unable to open an initial console.
> > 
> > and then:
> > 
> > Run /init as init process
> > Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x00000100
> > 
> > Since SERIAL_OF_PLATFORM already depends on SERIAL_8250 && OF there
> > really is no drawback to defaulting this config to the value of
> > SERIAL_8250.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> This patch results in situations where CONFIG_SERIAL_OF_PLATFORM is now
> defined where it was not previously. Example mpc85xx_defconfig. This in
> turn results in boot failures for those configurations, with an error
> message of
> 
> of_serial: probe of e0004500.serial failed with error -22
> 
> which wasn't seen before.
> 
> Not sure if replacing a potential problem with a real one is really an
> improvement.`

What ever was the result of this long thread?  Should I revert
something?  Or was a patch proposed?

totally lost,

greg k-h