linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?

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: <2c0942db0911290949p89ae64bjc3c7501c2de6930c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:49:51 -0800
From:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>,
	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>,
	dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com,
	jarod@...sonet.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	mchehab@...hat.com, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR 
	system?

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com> wrote:
> This has zero advantages besides good developer feeling that "My system
> has one less daemon..."

Surely it's clear that having an unnecessary daemon is introducing
another point of failure? Reducing complexity is not just its own
reward in a 'Developer Feel Good' way.

If decoding can *only* be sanely handled in user-space, that's one
thing. If it can be handled in kernel, then that would be better.
--
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/