linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Squashfs pull request for 2.6.29

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: <20090122234145.GA469@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:41:45 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	kyle@...radead.org
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	J?rn Engel <joern@...fs.org>, David Brown <lkml@...idb.org>,
	Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Phillip Lougher <phillip@...gher.demon.co.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Squashfs pull request for 2.6.29


* Kyle McMartin <kyle@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:04:57PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Why does it need to be upstream for someone to cut their teeth helping
> > > out?
> > Because people don't know where to look if it is out-of-the tree.
> > Seriously, if it can't be easily found, it's not fixed up.  Proof of
> > that is the hundreds of out-of-tree drivers that I have found over the
> > past months.
> 
> What about the hundreds of utterly crap drivers we have *right now* in 
> the kernel? Just because something is distributed with the kernel does 
> *not* mean it will get cleaned up. There's hundreds of counterexamples 
> to that. If you think moving some of them to drivers/staging to increase 
> the "visibility" to people looking for low hanging fruit, I can generate 
> a list...

that is true and it does not contradict the purpose and intention of 
drivers/staging/ though - it extends it.

We could create drivers/staging/in/ and drivers/staging/out/.

So instead of marking drivers CONFIG_BROKEN we could move them to 
drivers/staging/out/ - and if they dont get 'saved' within a kernel 
release they will be zapped for good. That is more gradual than a sudden 
'remove a driver completely' action.

	Ingo
--
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/