linux-kernel - Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16

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: <20061210224903.GA23643@tuatara.stupidest.org>
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:49:03 -0800
From:	Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@...giomb.no-ip.org>,
	Daniel Ritz <daniel.ritz@....ch>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	Brice Goglin <brice@...i.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Bauke Jan Douma <bjdouma@...all.nl>,
	Tomasz Koprowski <tomek@...rowski.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16

On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 02:39:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> They should be safe, and OBVIOUS.

Well, it's not clear to me that reverting to a quirk the pokes *all*
VIA pci devices on all machines is safe, it's not even clear if it was
a good idea to merge this.

All the same, I can retest the latest 2.6.16.x with that change
reverted but since it originally caused pain there has been a BIOS
upgrade (or two, I forget) that might affect things (for many poeple
the quirk isn't needed and CPI does the right thing).

> If there is a box that breaks with a 2.6.x.y release, then that .y
> release was clearly a mistake, and fundamentally broke the whole
> point of the 3Astable tree.

Well, I think the current 2.6.16.x release series is already broken on
some other subset of hardware.

There might be more of those than there are with the quirk-me-hard
approach --- in which case do we try to accommodate the (potential)
majority with something that is clearly wrong or so we leave them
broken for a bit longer until we can get some more coverage on Alan's
much cleaner and specific fix which I think is slated for 2.6.20 and
then backport that?
-
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/