linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tty: serial: handle HAS

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: <a78fae4c-6ab4-4ac1-ae72-c68b24ebb640@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:11 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Niklas Schnelle" <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 "Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
 linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
 "Heiko Carstens" <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tty: serial: handle HAS_IOPORT dependencies

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, at 17:41, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 12:54 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>> ---8<---
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/Kconfig b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/Kconfig
>> > > index 47ff50763c04..54bf98869abf 100644
>> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/Kconfig
>> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/Kconfig
>> > > @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
>> > >  
>> > >  config SERIAL_8250
>> > >  	tristate "8250/16550 and compatible serial support"
>> > > -	depends on !S390
>> > 
>> > Why? Your changelogs gives zero insight on this change.
>> 
>> I used this for compile testing since I build on s390 natively and this
>> would have hidden the missing HAS_IOPORT dependencies I'm pretty sure
>> it was added because of the I/O port problem too. I'll either add to
>> the commit description that it is no longer needed or drop this. Any
>> preference?
>
> Okay, we might never know the reason for sure if that's old enough.
> I think the best approach would be to put it into own patch so this 
> guessimation is limited to a single liner patch instead of it being 
> hidden among the other clearer cases.

>From the description in commit 1598e38c0770 ("serial: forbid
8250 on s390") I would just leave the dependency there.

     Arnd