netdev - Re: [PATCH] lan78xx: Protect runtime_auto check by #ifdef CONFIG

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 Mar 2016 15:28:23 +0100
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
	Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lan78xx: Protect runtime_auto check by #ifdef CONFIG_PM

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 10:21 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> I don't see any point in resuming the device just in order to collect 
> operating statistics.  If it was already suspended then it wasn't 
> operating, so there will be no statistics to collect.

Indeed. In that case the point is moot. But it is correct to ask
the core whether the device is autosuspended at that point rather
than keep a private flag if you can.

All that is relevant only if the upper layers ask for information
that the driver cannot provide without resuming the device.
Those are fundamentally different issues.

	Regards
		Oliver