linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mailbox: ARM_MHU

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: <ZlcWFRftNHFOjYlr@pluto>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 12:48:37 +0100
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mailbox: ARM_MHU_V3 should depend on ARM64

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:36:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:13 PM Cristian Marussi
> <cristian.marussi@....com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:30:45AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > The ARM MHUv3 controller is only present on ARM64 SoCs.  Hence add a
> > > dependency on ARM64, to prevent asking the user about this driver when
> > > configuring a kernel for a different architecture than ARM64.
> >
> > the ARM64 dependency was dropped on purpose after a few iterations of
> > this series since, despite this being an ARM IP, it has really no technical
> > dependency on ARM arch, not even the usual one on ARM AMBA bus, being this a
> > platform driver, so it seemed an uneeded artificial restriction to impose...
> > ...having said that, surely my live testing were performed only on arm64 models
> > as of now.
> 
> For that, we have COMPILE_TEST=y.
> 
> > So, I am not saying that I am against this proposed fix but what is the
> > issue that is trying to solve, have you seen any compilation error ? or
> > is it just to avoid the user-prompting ?
> 
> I did not see a compile error (I didn't enable it on any non-ARM
> platform).
> 
> But it is rather futile to ask the user about (thousands of) drivers
> for hardware that cannot possibly be present on the system he is
> configuring a kernel for.

Understood, as of now it is certainly high-unlikely to find such an ARM
IP on a non-ARM SoC and I suppose that we can anyway drop this if ever the
day will come that such a system will appear.

Fine for me.

Thanks,
Cristian