linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] serial: 8250_pcilib: Replace deprecated PCI functions

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: <e018879d65948462984da19e53cb610a@dev.tdt.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:18:42 +0200
From: Florian Eckert <fe@....tdt.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
	kumaravel.thiagarajan@...rochip.com, pnewman@...necttech.com,
	angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	yujiaoliang@...o.com, arnd@...nel.org, cang1@...e.co.uk,
	macro@...am.me.uk, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com,
	Eckert.Florian@...glemail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] serial: 8250_pcilib: Replace deprecated PCI functions



On 2025-10-20 10:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 08:47:16AM +0200, Florian Eckert wrote:
>> On 2025-10-18 21:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 09:27:43AM +0200, Florian Eckert wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> > > +	if (pci_resource_flags(priv->dev, bar) & IORESOURCE_MEM) {
>> >
>> > Dunno if this is included already in Linux Next, but here is room for
>> > improvement.
>> 
>> I followed the code in the 'serial8250_pci_setup_port()' [1] function.
>> The same pattern is used there [2].
> 
> I see. So if we want to amend that, it should be done separately.

If that's the case, then I'm done with this patchset, right?
I do not have to send a v3?

> 
>> > The problem with the above code is it (wrongly?) checks for bit and not
>> > for the resource type. OTOH I don't remember if 64-bit version requires
>> > the IORESOURCE_MEM to be set along with that.
>> 
>> Do you mean the function 'platform_get_resource()' [3]? This is a 
>> platform
>> device function?
> 
> I mean that the IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOURCE_MEM_64 are separate bit 
> flags in
> struct resource::flags. Checking on one might not imply the other be 
> set,
> however brief look at the sources shows that _MEM_64 is supposed to be 
> set on
> top of _MEM.

Okay, I understand.

---
Best regards

Florian