linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging/octeon: Mark Ethernet driver as BROKEN

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: <20191202173620.GA29323@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:36:20 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Wambui Karuga <wambui.karugax@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/octeon: Mark Ethernet driver as BROKEN

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:52:31PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 06:18:36AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > The code doesn't compile due to incompatible pointer errors such as
> > 
> > drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-tx.c:649:50: error:
> > 	passing argument 1 of 'cvmx_wqe_get_grp' from incompatible pointer type
> > 
> > This is due to mixing, for example, cvmx_wqe_t with 'struct cvmx_wqe'.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, one can not just revert the primary offending commit, as doing so
> > results in secondary errors. This is made worse by the fact that the "removed"
> > typedefs still exist and are used widely outside the staging directory,
> > making the entire set of "remove typedef" changes pointless and wrong.
> 
> Ugh, sorry about that.
> 
> > Reflect reality and mark the driver as BROKEN.
> 
> Should I just delete this thing?  No one seems to be using it and there
> is no move to get it out of staging at all.
> 
> Will anyone actually miss it?  It can always come back of someone
> does...
> 

All it does is causing trouble and misguided attempts to clean it up.
If anything, the whole thing goes into the wrong direction (declare a
complete set of dummy functions just to be able to build the driver
with COMPILE_TEST ? Seriously ?).

I second the motion to drop it. This has been in staging for 10 years.
Don't we have some kind of time limit for code in staging ? If not,
should we ? If anyone really needs it, that person or group should
really invest the time to get it out of staging for good.

Guenter