linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] serial: 8250: Allow port registration without UPF_BOOT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:37:59 +0200
From:   Esben Haabendal <esben@...bendal.dk>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt\, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Darwin Dingel <darwin.dingel@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>,
        Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] serial: 8250: Allow port registration without UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF

"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net> writes:

> On 27.04.19 10:58, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>> That said, the purpose of UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF (for 8250 driver) is to
>> request and map the register memory.  So when that is already done by
>> the parent MFD driver, I think it is silly to workaround problems
>> caused by UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF being force setted, when it really
>> shouldn't.
> I tend to agree. Maybe we should give serial8250_register_8250_port()
> some flags for controlling this, or add another function for those
> cases.

Changing serial8250_register_8250_port() would break existing drivers,
as I have seen that some explicitly rely on the automtic addition of
UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF.

> A minimal-invasive approach could be introducing an
> serial8250_register_8250_port_ext() with extra parameters, and let
> serial8250_register_8250_port() just call it.

So basically a rename of __serial8250_register_8250_port() in my patch
to serial8250_register_8250_port_ext()?  Fine with me.  Should we give
it an EXPORT_SYMBOL() also, as it is just as valid to use in modules as
the current serial8250_register_8250_port()?

/Esben