netdev - Re: [atl1-devel] [PATCH 2/2] atl1: wrap problematic optimizations in CONFIG_ATL1

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: <68676e00709071721g35c07b0by58991c56e17ec442@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 8 Sep 2007 02:21:24 +0200
From:	Luca <kronos.it@...il.com>
To:	"Chris Snook" <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Jeff Garzik" <jeff@...zik.org>, atl1-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [atl1-devel] [PATCH 2/2] atl1: wrap problematic optimizations in CONFIG_ATL1_EXPERIMENTAL

On 9/8/07, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
>
> Make certain problematic optimizations build-time configurable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Jay Cliburn <jacliburn@...lsouth.net>
>
> --- a/drivers/net/atl1/atl1_main.c      2007-09-04 10:12:38.000000000 -0400
> +++ b/drivers/net/atl1/atl1_main.c      2007-09-04 11:23:26.000000000 -0400
> @@ -2203,22 +2203,26 @@ static int __devinit atl1_probe(struct p
>         struct net_device *netdev;
>         struct atl1_adapter *adapter;
>         static int cards_found = 0;
> -       bool pci_using_64 = true;
> +       bool pci_using_64 = false;
>         int err;
>
>         err = pci_enable_device(pdev);
>         if (err)
>                 return err;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ATL1_EXPERIMENTAL
>         err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_64BIT_MASK);
> +       if (!err) {
> +               pci_using_64 = true;
> +               goto dma_ok;
> +       }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_ATL1_EXPERIMENTAL */

This is more like CONFIG_ATL1_PLEASE_KILL_MY_MACHINE; I really don't
see the problem with just limiting the DMA mask:
- if you don't have physical mem over the 4GB boundary limiting DMA
doesn't make any difference
- if you have more than 4GB of memory the machine won't survive long without it

Luca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html