linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 8250_pci.c: Update NI specific devices class to multi 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: <20190123141106.GG9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:11:06 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Guan Yung Tseng <guan.yung.tseng@...com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8250_pci.c: Update NI specific devices class to multi
 serial

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:55:08PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:10:05PM +0800, Guan Yung Tseng wrote:
> > Modified NI devices class to PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION_MULTISERIAL.
> > The reason of doing this is because all NI multi port serial cards
> > use PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION_OTHER class and thus fail the
> > serial_pci_is_class_communication test added in the commit 7d8905d06405
> > ("serial: 8250_pci: Enable device after we check black list").
> 
> OK, so commit 7d8905d06405 ("serial: 8250_pci: Enable device after we
> check black list") has created a regression. If the device does not
> use PCI_CLASS_COMMUNICATION*SERIAL class, probe will fail, and I
> don't think that is how the driver should function.
> 
> If the device id is listed in serial_pci_tbl, we need to probe the
> device, regardless of the class id.

I need to check what should be a better fix.

> This is only working around the regression that 7d8905d064058 created,
> and only with your UART. There may be others.
> 
> We need to fix the regression, not work around it. How about something
> like the attached diff?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko