linux-kernel - Re: [2/3] mwifiex: support sysfs initiated device coredump

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:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:19:18 +0100
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:     Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Bluetooth mailing list 
        <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [2/3] mwifiex: support sysfs initiated device coredump

Hi Arend,

>>>>> Since commit 3c47d19ff4dc ("drivers: base: add coredump driver ops")
>>>>> it is possible to initiate a device coredump from user-space. This
>>>>> patch adds support for it adding the .coredump() driver callback.
>>>>> As there is no longer a need to initiate it through debugfs remove
>>>>> that code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Based on the discussion I assume this is ok to take to w-d-next. If that's not
>>>> the case, please let me know ASAP.
>>> 
>>> It is up to the mwifiex maintainers to decide, I guess. The ABI
>>> documentation need to be revised and change the callback to void
>>> return type. I am not sure what the best approach is. 1) apply this
>>> and fix return type later, or 2) fix return type and resubmit this.
>>> What is your opinion?
>> 
>> I guess the callback change will go through Greg's tree? Then I suspect
>> it's easier that you submit the callback change to Greg first and wait
>> for it to trickle down to wireless-drivers-next (after the next merge
>> window) and then I can apply the driver patches. Otherwise there might
>> be a conflict between my and Greg's tree.
> 
> That was my assessment, but unfortunately Marcel already applied the btmrvl patch before I could reply. So how do I move from here? Option 1) revert brmrvl and fix callback return type, or 2) apply mwifiex patch and fix callback return type later for both drivers.

I can take the patch back out of bluetooth-next if needed. It is your call.

Regards

Marcel