linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/21] Totally remove SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD

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, 28 Jan 2016 15:54:44 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/21] Totally remove
 SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION quirk

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:03:34 +0100
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> >  
> >> > of it's bad code structure. Therefore I have taken a quite simple
> >> > approach by rejecting new callbacks and quirks, in a way to prevent it
> >> > from being worse.  
> >
> > Which merely guarantees that the problem gets worse, because everyone
> > just puts their SD patches into Android trees instead and then when that
> > device is needed in Linux proper the crap hits the fan or people write
> > uglier and more hideous hacks buried elsewhere.
> >
> > Eventually something gives way, and it will always be the maintainer,
> > because everyone needs to get their devices supported. You can guide new
> > callbacks in constructive ways but not stop them.  
> 
> Well, I did stop them at least temporary.

I always describe it as "putting a cork in the sewerage pipe". It might
stop it for a bit but

a) you don't want to be too close when it breaks
b) it's not good what happens further up the pipe

> 
> Although, I have been telling people *why* and also trying to give
> some guidelines of how I wanted this to move forward.
> 
> I understand some become frustrated from getting patches nacked like this.
> 
> In principle I have requested them to help evolving sdhci in a new and
> better direction, instead of adding yet more hacks. That of course
> requires a deeper understanding of both the mmc core, but also sdhci
> in general.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Also, thanks for sharing your experience in this field. You made some
> good points!

I'm happy to help try and sort the code out. Not maintain it - my
knowledge of the intricacies of SDHCI is not good enough.

Alan