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: <aDbiaepHBSgh1BNZ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 13:16:09 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
	Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray@...el.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Michael J. Ruhl" <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>,
	intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/vsec: fix CONFIG_INTEL_VSEC dependency

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 12:03:43PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025, at 11:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 03:55:46PM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 02:10:46PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> > +	depends on INTEL_PLATFORM_DEVICES || !(X86 && ACPI)
> >> 
> >> 		   ^
> >> Did you mean X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES here?
> 
> Yes, my mistake.
> 
> > Why do we need to depend on the whole thingy (yes, it will be enabled at the
> > end) if we only talking about Intel?
> 
> I don't understand what you mean with 'the whole thing'. My change
> changed the existing 'select X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES if X86 && ACPI'
> into the corresponding dependency, in order to change it the
> least.

It used to be (for only one or two releases) X86_PLATFORM_DRIVERS_INTEL, but it
doesn't look closer to the mistake above, which I was thinking of. So, Lucas is
right.

> The dependency itself is needed because of
> 
>        select ACPI_WMI if X86 && ACPI
> 
> and this in turn is needed for
> 
>        select ACPI_VIDEO if X86 && ACPI
> 
> >> With that, Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
> >> 
> >> I see several drivers selecting
> >> X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES though. Maybe they should also be translated to
> >> dependencies instead?
> >
> > I think so, selecting that sounds wrong.
> 
> Agreed. Overall, what I'd really like to see is to remove
> all those 'select' of drivers from other subsystems.

Let's start from some low-hanging fruits?

> I think
> ACPI_VIDEO is at the center here, and changing all the
> 'select ACPI_VIDEO if ACPI' instances to
> 'depends on ACPI_VIDEO || !ACPI_VIDEO' would solve a lot of
> the recurring dependency loop problems in drivers/gpu/.
> 
> Actually doing it without regressions is going to be
> nontrivial though, because any change in this area is likely
> to trigger another dependency loop somewhere.

True and I agree this requires more comprehensive testing.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ