linux-kernel - Re: pcmcia ioctl removal

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, 1 May 2007 13:00:23 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: pcmcia ioctl removal

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:12:36PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> On May 1 2007 05:16, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >on the other hand, the features removal file contains the following:
> >
> >...
> >What:   PCMCIA control ioctl (needed for pcmcia-cs [cardmgr, cardctl])
> >When:   November 2005
> >...
> >
> >in other words, the PCMCIA ioctl feature *has* been listed as obsolete
> >for quite some time, and is already a *year and a half* overdue for
> >removal.
> >
> >in short, it's annoying to take the position that stuff can't be
> >deleted without warning, then turn around and be reluctant to remove
> >stuff for which *more than ample warning* has already been given.
> >doing that just makes a joke of the features removal file, and makes
> >you wonder what its purpose is in the first place.
> >
> >a little consistency would be nice here, don't you think?
> 
> I think this could raise their attention...
> 
> init/Makefile
> obj-y += obsolete.o
> 
> init/obsolete.c:
> static __init int obsolete_init(void)
> {
> 	printk("\e[1;31m""
> 
> The following stuff is gonna get removed \e[5;37m SOON: \e[0m
> 	- cardmgr
> 	- foobar
> 	- bweebol
> 
> ");
> 	schedule_timeout(3 * HZ);
> 	return;
> }
> 
> static __exit void obsolete_exit(void) {}

There's something I like here : the fact that all features are centralized
and not hidden in the noise. Clearly we need some standard inside the kernel
to manage obsolete code as well as we currently do by hand.

Willy

-
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/