linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] ASoC: topology: Improve backwards compatibility with v4 topology files

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, 22 May 2018 18:14:31 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chintan Patel <chintan.m.patel@...el.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] ASoC: topology: Improve backwards compatibility
 with v4 topology files

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:58:42AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> Both problems have been widely reported. Various attempts were made to
> fix the problem, usually by providing v5 configuration files. However,
> all those attempts result in incomplete ASoC configuration.

This is the first time I've heard that there were still ongoing issues,
it's extremely disappointing - I'm guessing the attempts have all been
at the distro level.  Userspace fixes clearly aren't the thing to do
here, as discussed at the time the original fixes were done this is an
ABI and needs to be treated as such.

None of the systems I have access to have ever used topology so I've had
poor visibility of how this is working in practice, I guess I'm going to
start seeing this stuff next time I upgrade my laptop (unless someone is
making suitable non-x86 laptops by then!).

> Let's implement backward compatibility properly to solve the problem
> for good.

Thanks for doing this.  I'll give this some time for review from the
Intel people - adding Pierre as well since this is a bit of a device
thing.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)