linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] gpiolib: fix linker errors when GPIOLIB is disabled

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: <7bf72f8f-1936-4b1e-b970-2fe09b6641ca@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:27:51 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "Bartosz Golaszewski" <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        "Pierluigi Passaro" <pierluigi.p@...iscite.com>,
        "kernel test robot" <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] gpiolib: fix linker errors when GPIOLIB is disabled

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 11:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:40:18AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 09:14, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> 
>> All of these should already prevent the link failure through
>> a Kconfig 'depends on GPIOLIB' for the driver, or 'select GPIOLIB'
>> for the platform code. I checked all of the above and they seem fine.
>> If anything else calls the function, I'd add the same dependency
>> there.
>
> So, you think it's worth to send a few separate fixes as adding that
> dependency? But doesn't it feel like a papering over the issue with
> that APIs used in some of the drivers in the first place?

If there are drivers that use the interfaces but shouldn't then
fixing those drivers is clearly better than adding a dependency,
but we can decide that when someone sends a patch.

Adding a stub helper that can never be used legitimately
but turns a build time error into a run time warning seems
counterproductive to me, as the CI systems are no longer
able to report these automatically.

    Arnd