linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] staging: gpib: Fix i386 build issue

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: <2024121051-snowiness-sampling-2fe2@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:39:03 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@...il.com>,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] staging: gpib: Fix i386 build issue

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 08:52:08AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Günter,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 5:18 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > The underlying problem is that the code uses a pointer to store the physical
> > address. That doesn't work if sizeof(pointer) < sizeof(physical address),
> > which affects systems with X86_PAE enabled. I have not seen the problem
> > anywhere else.
> 
> I could reproduce the build issue on ARM, with CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y,
> which is not enabled by allmodconfig.

So does that mean this patch is incorrect?

confused,

greg k-h