DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0CF7C8124D
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704142007590.2327@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704142007590.2327@nanos> <149141141298.29162.5612793122429261720.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <149141142839.29162.10470212173396183651.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/38] Annotate hardware config module parameters in arch/x86/mm/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <10431.1492519106.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:38:26 +0100
Message-ID: <10432.1492519106@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1249
Lines: 32

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> > -module_param(mmio_address, ulong, 0);
> > +module_param_hw(mmio_address, ulong, iomem, 0);
> >  MODULE_PARM_DESC(mmio_address, " Start address of the mapping of 16 kB "
> >  				"(or 8 MB if read_far is non-zero).");
> 
> The copied boilerplate above is really nonsensical here. The default
> address is 0, so the init function will emit:
> 
>      pr_err("you have to use the module argument mmio_address.\n");
>      pr_err("DO NOT LOAD THIS MODULE UNLESS YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!\n");
> 
> Pretty useless when you can't supply a valid address.
> 
>        if (kernel_locked_down()) {
>        		pr_info("This is not allowed because ...");
> 		return -EPERM;
>        }
> 
> would make too much sense for the user, right?

In some drivers, this would be wrong - ipmi, for example - and we've already
been through this.  The hwparam series of patches annotates *all*
ioport/iomem/irq/dma specifiers unconditionally.  The hwparam series is the
way it is is because this has no overhead if it's not used - and also has the
potentially useful side effect of making such parameters greppable.

It may well make sense to add your above suggestion also - but in the other
patch series.

David