linux-kernel - Re: libata & no PCI: dma_[un]map

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:25:15 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	hch@...radead.org, mroos@...ux.ee, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: libata & no PCI: dma_[un]map_single undefined

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:16:25 EDT, Jeff Garzik said:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:03:45PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > And rather than configuring your MUA to ignore the header...
> 
> > You're using mutt, mutt can be configured so.
> 
> So, you are seriously proposing that EVERYONE reconfigure their MUA,
> because you are sending out bad headers?
> 
> Don't you think that is an unscalable solution, and an imposition?

Not only is it unscalable, it almost by definition is anti-social.  The only
times I've actually seen one in the wild, it's because some subscriber to a
mailing list wishes to subvert the list's culture in a manner worse than
a Reply-To: header.  I considered adding support for Mail-Followup-To: to
the exmh MUA, but decided against it, because it would basically mean that
every time I got one, I'd have to curse and moan and put the To: and cc: back
the way everybody *else* on the list wanted those to headers to behave. Kind
of hard to motivate myself to write Tk/Tcl code that will just mean a *worse*
user experience for myself...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped