linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/rdmavt: modify rdmavt/qp.c for UML

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 04 Jan 2022 09:43:17 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/rdmavt: modify rdmavt/qp.c for UML

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 08:03 +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > 
> > > Why are you trying to make a HW driver compile on UML? Is there any
> > > way to even use a driver like this in a UML environment?
> > 
> > I'm just trying to clean up lots of UML build errors.
> > I'm quite happy just making the driver depend on !UML.
> > 
> > UML maintainers, what do you think?
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> 
> I would suggest that we just !UML this driver.
> 
Agree, unless some of the maintainers of this driver actually wants to
build simulation for it for testing or something, it's almost certainly
completely useless.

After all, the reason I enabled PCI on UML was to be able to test - in
simulation - PCI driver code in UML... Most certainly nobody wants to do
that here, so it's pointless to let the driver be compiled.

OTOH, as Christoph points out, that seems like a band-aid for some
really strange code, but it's probably the easiest way to get the build
issue fixed in the short term.

johannes