linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI: osl: Add __force attribute in acpi_os_map

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:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:21:37 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Veronika kabatova <vkabatov@...hat.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI: osl: Add __force attribute in
 acpi_os_map_iomem() cast

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 11:59, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:55:08PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:40:28PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > The whole problem we are solving here is that ACPI, being based on
> > > > x86, conflates MMIO mappings with memory mappings, and has been using
> > > > the same underlying infrastructure for either.
> > >
> > > So let's fix that problem instead of papering over it.
> >
> > Patch (3) in this series is a fix - I would ask whether it makes
> > sense to merge patches (2-3) now and think about reworking the current
> > ACPI IO/MEM mapping API later, it can be an invasive change for a fix,
> > assuming we agree on how to rework the ACPI IO/MEM mapping API.
>
> What should we do then with this series ?
>

It is not even clear that reworking the ACPI core is feasible to begin
with, OTOH, fixing a sparse warning is arguably not a critical bug fix
either, so I'd suggest we just drop that bit.