linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serdev: fix builds with CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV

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: <20191218093806.GK22665@localhost>
Date:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:38:06 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serdev: fix builds with CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS=m

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:29:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:06:06AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 09:38:42AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Commit 54edb425346a ("serdev: simplify Makefile") broke builds with
> > > serdev configured as module. I don't understand it completely yet, but
> > > it seems that
> > > 
> > > 	obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS) += serdev/
> > > 
> > > in drivers/tty/Makefile with CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS=m doesn't result in
> > > code that is added using obj-y in drivers/tty/serdev/Makefile being
> > > compiled. So instead of dropping $(CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS) in serdev's
> > > Makefile, drop it in drivers/tty/Makefile.
> > 
> > Why not simply revert the offending patch? There are some dependencies
> > here related to how the tty layer is built. If you're still not certain
> > on why things broke, I suggest just reverting for now.
> 
> I see that it is not easy to define what obj-y should do in a Makefile
> that is included via obj-m. Now it is the other way round and that
> should be safe. This construct is used in several places, so I'd say the
> patch is fine unless you have more concrete concerns.

No, and I don't have time to look into this right now.

It's more about the general principle that a patch should do one thing;
in this case unbreak the build. If you want to do cleanups as well, you
do that separately (and argue for why its needed).

Johan