linux-kernel - Re: [RfC PATCH] fbdev: list all memory bars as conflicting apertures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190314113056.sa4zkunxgyxef3t5@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:30:56 +0100
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        "open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RfC PATCH] fbdev: list all memory bars as conflicting apertures

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:37:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:07:41PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Simply add all pci memory bars to struct apertures_struct in
> > remove_conflicting_pci_framebuffers().  That allows to drop
> > the res_id parameter.
> > 
> > TODO: actually remove the res_id parameter.
> 
> I think best to do that in a cleanup patch afterwards.

I was just lazy and didn't want update all callers for the first patch
draft.  But doing a test run ...

> Maybe if you want to be paranoid in the conversion add a check that we're
> not skipping the pci bar requested in res_id. Then we could test this for
> a kernel and remove the parameter later on.

... that way before actually dropping the parameter surely makes sense.

New version on the way,
  Gerd