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: <aSb8s_N4Pc0yTk9f@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 14:12:19 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	Daniel Thompson <danielt@...nel.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] drivers: serial: kgdboc: Drop checks for
 CON_ENABLED and CON_BOOT

On Fri 2025-11-21 15:50:33, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> The original code tried to find a console that has CON_BOOT _or_
> CON_ENABLED flag set. The flag CON_ENABLED is set to all registered
> consoles, so in this case this check is always true, even for the
> CON_BOOT consoles.
> 
> The initial intent of the kgdboc_earlycon_init was to get a console
> early (CON_BOOT) or later on in the process (CON_ENABLED). The
> code was using for_each_console macro, meaning that all console structs
> were previously registered on the printk() machinery. At this point,
> any console found on for_each_console is safe for kgdboc_earlycon_init
> to use.
> 
> Dropping the check makes the code cleaner, and avoids further confusion
> by future readers of the code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>

I agree that the check is superfluous and can be removed:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>

Best Regards,
Petr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ