linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] parport_pc: don't allow driver for SPARC32

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: <743b5d56-91b1-0b39-44f2-d353a95d59a0@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:51:13 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parport_pc: don't allow driver for SPARC32



On 4/6/23 12:49, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
>> arch/sparc/kernel/ebus.o is only built for SPARC64.
>> ns87303_lock is only built for SPARC64.
>> arch/sparc/include/asm/parport.h says that it is for sparc64.
>> Various documentation on the internet says that ebus is for UltraSPARC
>> systems (64-bit).
>>
>> Therefore don't allow PARPORT_PC to be built for SPARC32.
> 
>  This looks completely wrong to me, any ordinary PCI parallel port card 
> ought just to work as long as you have PCI (S390 is special I'm told).  
> What needs to be done is AFAICT just making `parport_pc_find_nonpci_ports' 
> in arch/sparc/include/asm/parport.h SPARC64-specific, i.e.:
> 
> static int parport_pc_find_nonpci_ports(int autoirq, int autodma)
> {
> 	return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPARC64) &&
> 		platform_driver_register(&ecpp_driver));
> }
> 
> or suchlike and let the optimiser get rid of all the unwanted unsupported 
> stuff.

Fine, please go ahead with that solution.

-- 
~Randy