linux-kernel - Re: [stable] Wanted: Allow adding new device IDs during the -stable cycle

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, 22 May 2007 12:35:38 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [stable] Wanted: Allow adding new device IDs during the
	-stable cycle

On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:04:08PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>  Greg KH wrote:
> > What's wrong with the current sysfs way of adding new device ids without
> > touching the kernel?  Devices described above was the very reason we
> > added that functionality, so users would not have to constantly update
> > their kernel.  The distros provide userspace tools that enable these ids
> > to be added and at boot time, everything "just works" properly.
> 
>  I haven't found a single distro that (a) makes it trivial to add PCI IDs at 
>  install time, and then (b) ensures those PCI IDs remain persistent for each 
>  boot.  We are not at all to the "just works" stage yet.

Well, SuSE handles this just fine, but I do notice that RHEL 5 disables
the new_id stuff entirely, so I can see why you might get this
impression :)

> > So, because of that, I don't really see a need to be adding new device
> > ids to the -stable tree.
> 
>  Maybe you are just not seeing all the developers that keep bringing this 
>  up??

This is the second time it has occurred that I know of.

>  Really, it is just silly to think that one-line PCI IDs patches will cause 
>  any harm at all, and it should be self-evident that there is clear potential 
>  to HELP Linux users.  That's why we're all here, right?

I'm not disagreeing that it will help a set of users, or that it will
cause any harm at all.  It's just currently outside the scope for what
we defined -stable as, and it will slightly increase the workload that
Chris and I have in keeping up with these patches.

So, if there is an overwhelming majority of people that strongly feel
that this is a good thing, fine, we can try it out.

I'm just trying to point out that the new_id sysfs stuff is there
explicitly for this very reason, as people were demanding that (Dell
being the major company behind it.)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/