linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:31:01 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Shlomo Pongratz <shlomopongratz@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        andrew.maier@...eticom.com, logang@...tatee.com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, jgg@...dia.com,
        Shlomo Pongratz <shlomop@...ops.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:35:39AM +0300, Shlomo Pongratz wrote:
> In commit 7b94b53db34f ("PCI/P2PDMA: Add Intel Sky Lake-E Root Ports B, C, D to
> the whitelist")
> Andrew Maier added the Sky Lake-E additional devices
> 2031, 2032 and 2033 root ports to the already existing 2030 device.
> 
> The Intel devices 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 which are root ports A, B, C and D,
> respectively and if all exist they will occupy slots 0 till 3 in that order.

Please make this a sentence.

> The original code handled only the case where the devices in the whitelist are
> host bridges and assumed that they will be found on slot 0.
> 
> This assumption doesn't hold for root ports so an explicit test was added to
> cover this case.

Please update the subject line to match the style of previous ones.

Please wrap the commit log to fit in 80 columns (including the 4
spaces added by "git log") like previous commits.

Please figure out whether you want "Sky Lake-E" or "SkyLake-E" and use
it consistently in commit log and code comments.  It seems to be
"Skylake" on intel.com, so I suggest using that.

Please use imperative mood, e.g., instead of "an explicit test was
added ...," write "add a test to cover this case."  Do the same in
code comments.

Bjorn