linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Pegasos keyboard detection

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: <909c5e405e5cd26bca3aff13fe55adbc@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:30:35 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Matt Sealey <matt@...esi-usa.com>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Alan Curry <pacman@...World.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Pegasos keyboard detection

>> That's hardly the only reason.  But yeah, that's one way to
>> implement the workaround, but _we_ (the Linux community) cannot
>> do it like that (easily) for all users.
>
> But you're the guy who told us our firmware sucks and we should fix our
> firmware

Yes, and?  You _should_ fix your firmware, it is buggy after all.
Esp. back then as it wasn't shipping yet.

> rather than clutter Linux with too many fixups.

Also, putting fixups in the wrapper is a wholly different thing from
putting fixups deep inside the kernel code proper.

> Linux is already a bad enough moving target, and none of these fixes 
> help
> other operating systems or developers, if we only patch Linux,

But that's not Linux' concern.  You might care, we don't.  Is
this so hard to understand?

> 1) the reports as we had when Efika was released and continually levied
> against Pegasos firmware, that the firmware is broken and must be fixed
> to comply, and no fixes will be considered because "bplan sucks and 
> must
> fix it"
>
> 2) As long as the patches are 2 lines big, you will allow them in, 
> because
> it is too much for a user to update firmware or run a script to boot?

Our only two concerns are what is best on technical grounds, and what
is best for our users.

> Would you guys rather we shipped a boot script that ran the OS, fixed
> all these issues in-place in-firmware, so Linux did not have to have 
> these
> workarounds,

Sure, if you can do that, that would be great.


Segher

-
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/