| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:44:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de> Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] USB autosuspend fixes for 2.6.23-rc6 On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > No, what I'm concerned about is that this would require userspace for > something that is completely in-kernel. If done right (and autosuspend now is), there is no "required" userspace. If you want autosuspend, you just say so. The kernel doesn't do it by default. This is not about "user space required" - it's about "user space can ask for it if it wants to". Notice? There doesn't even have to be any blacklists/whitelists at all. It really can be just an application that allows the user to check or uncheck the capability (with a warning saying something like: "Some USB devices may disconnect when suspended - if this affects you, uncheck this"). That's why the kernel shouldn't set policy. It's a *good* thing to just expose the capabilities, but not necessarily use them! Linus - 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