netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] dsa: sja1105: fix reverse dependency

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]

Date:   Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:39:34 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] dsa: sja1105: fix reverse dependency

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:25 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > Fixes: 566b18c8b752 ("net: dsa: sja1105: implement TX timestamping for SJA1110")
> > Fixes: 227d07a07ef1 ("net: dsa: sja1105: Add support for traffic through standalone ports")
>
> The second Fixes: tag makes no sense.

Fair enough. I added this because that was when the original 'select' got added,
but of course it was not wrong at the time.

> > diff --git a/net/dsa/Kconfig b/net/dsa/Kconfig
> > index bca1b5d66df2..548285539752 100644
> > --- a/net/dsa/Kconfig
> > +++ b/net/dsa/Kconfig
> > @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ config NET_DSA_TAG_LAN9303
> >
> >  config NET_DSA_TAG_SJA1105
> >       tristate "Tag driver for NXP SJA1105 switches"
> > +     depends on NET_DSA_SJA1105 || !NET_DSA_SJA1105
>
> I think I would prefer an optional "build as module if NET_DSA_SJA1105 is a module"
> dependency only if NET_DSA_SJA1105_PTP is enabled. I think this is how that is
> expressed:
>
>         depends on (NET_DSA_SJA1105 && NET_DSA_SJA1105_PTP) || !NET_DSA_SJA1105 || !NET_DSA_SJA1105_PTP

Ah, I had not realized this dependency is only there when NET_DSA_SJA1105_PTP
is also enabled. I will give this a little more testing and resend
later with that change.

Do you have any opinion on whether that 'select' going the other way is still
relevant?

      Arnd