netdev - Re: [PATCH] Change S390 anti-dependency to CONFIG_GENERIC

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: <48F5345B.6060108@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:07:55 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	afleming@...il.com, afleming@...escale.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change S390 anti-dependency to CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
 dependency

David Miller wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:43:05 -0400
> 
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: "Andy Fleming" <afleming@...il.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:21:44 -0500
>>>
>>>> Argh.  From what I could see, we have request_irq, free_irq,
>>>> disable_irq, enable_irq, and disable_irq_nosync.  For the PHYLIB, it
>>>> shouldn't be difficult to modify things so that it doesn't compile in
>>>> interrupt support if the system doesn't support them.  Shouldn't, that
>>>> is, if there's some config option that tells me whether those
>>>> functions exist.
>>> I think this whole situation with s390 is rediculious.
>>> If s390 is weird and lacks these fundamental things, that's fine.
>>> What isn't fine is how we're handling this.
>>> No code should care or even be aware of this.
>>> S390 should simply provide a set of dummy DMA and interrupt interface
>>> stubs that always fail and return an error value.
>>> Then we can get rid of this S390 Kconfig stuff which has been spewed
>>> all over the place.
>> "depends on PCI" has always worked for me.  Any reason we can't use that here?
> 
> That's every worse.
> 
> What in the world does PCI have to do with the attribute we are
> trying to depend upon here?
> 
> No, it's just stupid.  Add nop do-nothing stub functions for the
> APIs an architecture doesn't support, then we need none of this.

But then it will be much more of a pain to exclude the vast swath of 
irrelevant code in the kernel tree from your builds on these exotic 
architectures.  Have you ever built a kernel on s390?  It's not exactly 
the architecture's strong suit, and cross-compilers have their own 
problems.  I don't care what it is, but we should have *some* mechanism 
for automatically excluding every PCI device driver in existence from 
our builds of s390 and any other similarly unusual architecture.

-- Chris
--
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