linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/44 take 2] [UBI] startup code

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: <20070517144420.GA3529@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 15:44:20 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/44 take 2] [UBI] startup code

On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:58:28AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Why not? We tried to avoid this but found out that this is the most
> > decent interface. Specific advises are welcome.
> 
> because this type of compount interface is really painful for the user.
> the module.param=foo syntax makes sure paramaters can be used without
> endless documentation for each and every single of them, and makes
> sure module writers don't introduce bugs in their own parser reimplementations.
> 
> Rusty, was it intentional that drivers can use __module_param_call?
> Do you think the ubi use here is okay?

So both I and Rusty told you not to do this and you did it anyway.

I'm quite pissed about this ignorance.  Andrew, what do we do about such
a case?  Should we just revert ubi until they fixed their mess up?
-
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/