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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Monakhov Dmitriy <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>, Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@...il.com> Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch? Looks like it, since it passed the uevent failures to the upper layer. > If so, do you think I should labour on with > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I > drop the lot? (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not > sure which patch(es) need to be dropped). This depends on what semantics uevent returning an error code should have. The firmware code was using it to suppress uevents, but uevent_suppress is a better idea now. So if we want uevent returning != 0 to imply "something really bad happened", all uevent functions have to be audited and those that work like firmware_uevent have to be converted to uevent_suppress. This would be cleaner, but I'm not sure it's worth the work. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists