linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: qcom-ep: Mark BAR0/BAR2 as 64bit BARs and BAR1/BAR3 as RESERVED

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241202174007.GA2902663@bhelgaas>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 11:40:07 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: kw@...ux.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	lpieralisi@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, kishon@...nel.org,
	aman1.gupta@...sung.com, p.rajanbabu@...sung.com,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, stable+noautosel@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: qcom-ep: Mark BAR0/BAR2 as 64bit BARs and
 BAR1/BAR3 as RESERVED

On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 06:28:45PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 01:55:37PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 02:54:12PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On all Qcom endpoint SoCs, BAR0/BAR2 are 64bit BARs by default
> > > and software cannot change the type. So mark the those BARs as
> > > 64bit BARs and also mark the successive BAR1/BAR3 as RESERVED
> > > BARs so that the EPF drivers cannot use them.
> ...

> > > Cc: stable+noautosel@...nel.org # depends on patch introducing only_64bit flag
> > 
> > If stable maintainers need to act on this, do they need to search for
> > the patch introducing only_64bit flag?  That seems onerous; is there a
> > SHA1 that would make it easier?
> 
> But that's not the point of having noautosel tag, AFAIK.
> 
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst clearly says that this
> tag is to be used when we do not want the stable team to backport
> the commit due to a missing dependency.
> ...

> Here I did not intend to backport this change with commit adding
> only_64bit flag because, I'm not sure if that dependency alone would
> be sufficient. If someone really cares about backporting this
> change, then they should figure out the dependencies, test the
> functionality and then ask the stable team.

Oh, sorry, I was assuming "stable+noautosel@...nel.org" was a hint for
stable maintainers to pick this up, not a hint to ignore it.
Eventually this meaning will sink in.

Bjorn