linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

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, 27 Mar 2011 13:18:58 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

On Sunday 27 March 2011 05:52:04 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 16:51, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Fine with me, if you can name at least one possible use for a flag.
> 
> i tend to assume that i cant think of all cases when i first write up
> something, so better to leave a hole for the future ;)

This makes sense for real syscalls, where adding a new one is a lot
of work. For an ioctl, adding a flag is almost exactly the same
amount of work as adding another ioctl command, but it adds complexity
for the first one, e.g. you need to decide how to handle unknown
flags passed to the kernel (ignore, bail out, or a combination).

It also makes correctly using the ioctl harder and adds a tiny
amount of overhead for parsing the flags and copying the addititional
word. Adding a flags word "just in case" is therfore counterproductive.

	Arnd
--
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/