linux-kernel - Merging of completely unreviewed drivers

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: <20080221210124.GD28328@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:01:24 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Glenn Streiff <gstreiff@...Effect.com>,
	Faisal Latif <flatif@...Effect.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Merging of completely unreviewed drivers

[ Linus Added to the To: since I want to hear his opinion on this issue. ]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:55PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > This driver should really have gotten some review before being included 
>  > in the kernel.
> 
>  > Even a simple checkpatch run finds more than > 250 stylistic errors
>  > (not code bugs but cases where the driver violates the standard code 
>  > formatting rules of kernel code).
> 
> Linus has strongly stated that we should merge hardware drivers early,
> and I agree: although the nes driver clearly needs more work, there's
> no advantage to users with the hardware in forcing them to wait for
> 2.6.26 to merge the driver, since they'll just have to patch the
> grungy code in themselves anyway.  And by merging the driver early, we
> get fixed up for any tree-wide changes and allow janitors to help with
> the cleanup.

Is it really intended to merge drivers without _any_ kind of review?

This driver even lacks a basic "please fix the > 250 checkpatch errors" [1]
and similar low hanging fruits that could easily be spotted and then 
fixed by the submitter within a short amount of time.

I see the point that it might make sense to not prevent the merging of 
drivers infinitely when they have some hard-to-fix issues, but was this 
really meant as an excuse for maintainers to no longer any review of 
what they merge at all?

> (By the way, the code is not that pretty but it a lot closer to
> upstream style than most driver submissions)
>...

There might be worse code being submitted, but when looking at what gets 
merged into Linus' tree this driver beats all other drivers I remember 
in both number of stylistic problems and bugs. [2]

>  - R.

cu
Adrian

BTW: Greg, you are Cc'ed for your joke in [3]...

[1] not to mention the > 2000 checkpatch warnings
[2] as already said, that's not meant against the driver submitter
    I'm complaining about the complete lack of review that would have 
    brought this driver into shape
[3] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/427

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/