linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ata: make PATA_PLATFORM selectable only for suitable architectures

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: <0485fd4d-21f3-4972-8667-91959180e60f@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 16:33:13 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Lukas Bulwahn" <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Russell King" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        "Damien Le Moal" <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ata: make PATA_PLATFORM selectable only for suitable
 architectures

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> It is currently possible to select "Generic platform device PATA support"
> in two situations:
>
>   - architecture allows the generic platform device PATA support and
>     indicates that with "select HAVE_PATA_PLATFORM".
>   - if the user claims to be an EXPERT by setting CONFIG_EXPERT to yes
>
> However, there is no use case to have Generic platform device PATA support
> in a kernel build if the architecture definition, i.e., the selection of
> configs by an architecture, does not support it.
>
> If the architecture definition is wrong, i.e., it just misses a 'select
> HAVE_PATA_PLATFORM', then even an expert that configures the kernel build
> should not just fix that by overruling the claimed support by an
> architecture. If the architecture definition is wrong, the expert should
> just provide a patch to correct the architecture definition instead---in
> the end, if the user is an expert, sending a quick one-line patch should
> not be an issue.
>
> In other words, I do not see the deeper why an expert can overrule the
> architecture definition in this case, as the expert may not overrule the
> config selections defined by the architecture in the large majority
> ---or probably all other (modulo some mistakes)---of similar cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>

Sounds reasonable. My best guess about the intention of the EXPERT
dependency is that it would be used for users with third-party
board files or dts files referencing these. We can't really help
users with out-of-tree boardfiles, and the external dts case would
be covered by your patch 1/2.

Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>