linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] iio: bme680

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:   Thu, 6 May 2021 15:42:08 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: bme680_i2c: Remove ACPI support

Hi,

On 5/6/21 3:37 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:28:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:43 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> With CONFIG_ACPI=n and -Werror, 0-day reports:
>>>
>>> drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_i2c.c:46:36: error:
>>>         'bme680_acpi_match' defined but not used
>>>
>>> Apparently BME0680 is not a valid ACPI ID. Remove it and with it
>>> ACPI support from the bme680_i2c driver.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
>>
>> with the SPI part amended in the same way.
>>
> Right. I just sent a patch doing that. Oddly enough 0-day didn't complain
> about that one to me, nor about many other drivers with the same problem.
> No idea how it decides if and when to make noise.
> 
> Is there a way to determine invalid ACPI IDs ?

No, unfortunately not. There is a format which ACPI IDs are
supposed to follow, but some "out in the wild" API ids don't
follow this; and many fake (made up) ACPI ids do follow it...

We (mostly Andy and me) are not even 100% sure this one is
a fake ACPI ID, but we do pretty strongly believe that it is.

Regards,

Hans