linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] New firewire stack

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]

Message-Id: <1165416546.7443.111.camel@gullible>
Date:	Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:49:06 -0500
From:	Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...hat.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] New firewire stack

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:56 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> (Adding Cc: linux1394-devel)
> 
> Ben Collins wrote at linux-kernel:
> > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 18:21 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 12:22:29AM -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >>>> I'm announcing an alternative firewire stack that I've been working on 
> >>>> the last few weeks.
> >>> Is mainline firewire so hopeless, that you've decided to rewrite it? Could
> >>> you show some ugly places in it?
> >> Yes.  I'm not doing this lightheartedly.  It's a lot of work and it will
> >> introduce regressions and instability for a little while.
> >>
> >> My main point about ohci1394 (the old stacks PCI driver) is, that if you
> >> really want to fix the issues with this driver, you have to shuffle the code
> >> around so much that you'll introduce as many regressions as a clean rewrite.
> >> The big problems in the ohci1394 drivers is the irq_handler, bus reset
> >> handling and config rom handling.  These are some of the strong points of
> >> fw-ohci.c:
> > 
> > My main concern is that when I picked up ieee1394 maint myself, it was
> > because it was not big-endian or 64-bit friendly.
> 
> I would like to see new development efforts take cleanliness WRT host
> byte order and 64bit architectures into account from the ground up. (I
> understand though why Kristian made the announcement in this early
> phase, and I agree with him that this kind of development has to go into
> the open early.)

And yet endianness is not the focus from the ground up in Kristian's
work. That was my point.
-
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/