linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

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:	Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:57:08 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...ervon.org>,
	nigel@...el.suspend2.net, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:50:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible
> > > > drivers, and modify only the known-compatible drivers to mark them
> > > > explicitly compatible. IMHO, it generally is a bad idea to require that
> > > > any driver explicitly states what it *does not* support. It's the reason
> > > > why users encounter problem on new features with old drivers. For instance,
> > > > do you know if the old ISA NE2000 driver breaks suspend ? I don't know,
> > > > but I would at least expect it not to support it by default. It's best
> > > > to announce what *is* supported and consider everything unimplemented
> > > > otherwise explicitly stated.
> > > 
> > > This ignores the reality of the situation, which is that many drivers 
> > > support suspend and resume despite the lack of any explicit 
> > > implementation. Changing things so they're flagged as broken when 
> > > they're not would be a regression.
> > 
> > Those which are identified as OK should be flagged OK. Only those for
> > which we have no idea should be flagged broken.
> 
> I think we don't need to flag the drivers identified as OK.  Let's flag only
> the suspicious ones.
> 
> Whatever we finally come up with, I'd like to avoid modifying drivers that are
> known good.

I understand your concerns, but the problem is not *current* drivers, but
what will happen to *new* drivers. If we make it implicit that a driver
is compatible, then new drivers will be promoted as good even if nothing
has been done for this.

Regards,
Willy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/