linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC, mpc85xx: Prevent building as a 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, 10 May 2019 20:50:52 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@...il.com>,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
        james.morse@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC, mpc85xx: Prevent building as a module

Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:

> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:55:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:52:05AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Thanks. It would be nice if you could send it as a fix for 5.2, it's the
>> > last thing blocking one of my allmodconfig builds. But if you don't
>> > think it qualifies as a fix that's fine too, it can wait.
>> 
>> Sure, no problem. Will do a pull request later.
>
> Hmm, so looking at this more, I was able to produce this config with my
> ancient cross-compiler:
>
> CONFIG_EDAC_SUPPORT=y
> CONFIG_EDAC=m
> CONFIG_EDAC_LEGACY_SYSFS=y
> CONFIG_EDAC_MPC85XX=y

Oh yeah good point.

> Now, mpc85xx_edac is built-in and edac_core.ko is a module
> (CONFIG_EDAC=m) and that should not work - i.e., builtin code calling
> module functions. But my cross-compiler is happily building this without
> complaint. Or maybe I'm missing something.

That's weird.

> In any case, I *think* the proper fix should be to do:
>
> config EDAC_MPC85XX
>         bool "Freescale MPC83xx / MPC85xx"
>         depends on FSL_SOC && EDAC=y
>
> so that you can't even produce the above invalid .config snippet.
>
> Hmmm?

Yeah that looks better to me. I didn't think about the case where EDAC
core is modular.

Do you want me to send a new patch?

cheers