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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:14:45 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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 11:27:51AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.

What about adding ifdeffery in their code instead with a FIXME comment? So
we will know that it's ugly and needs to be solved better sooner than later.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko