| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200708031344.03282.oliver@neukum.org> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:44:02 +0200 From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> To: linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] USB: Only enable autosuspend by default on certain device classes Am Freitag 03 August 2007 schrieb Matthew Garrett: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:01:08PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > Seems to me it ought to be practical to organize a database that can > > be consulted by an outcall from udev, disabling autosuspend on devices > > which are known to be broken. The "modules.usbmap" syntax is an obvious > > place to start (painful though it is), and I'm sure there are folk who > > would prefer web-accessible/updatable databases. > > It's certainly possible to do that, but it's also possible to have a > userspace solution that whitelists devices. The question is whether the > default kernel behaviour should be "Save power, but potentially break > some of my devices" or "Don't break my devices, but use some more > powre". If both options have drawbacks, IMHO we follow the standard, which says that devices must support suspension. Regards Oliver - 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