linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] pcmcia: disable pcmcia ioctl for !ARM, prepare for removal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100515145558.GA3184@comet.dominikbrodowski.net>
Date:	Sat, 15 May 2010 16:55:58 +0200
From:	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:	rmk@....linux.org.uk
Cc:	linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vincent Sanders <vince@...likki.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] pcmcia: disable pcmcia ioctl for !ARM, prepare for
 removal

Russell,

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 03:46:39PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 04:37:05PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > Russell,
> > 
> > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 03:24:10PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:00:48AM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > > Furthermore, the last legitimate use of the ioctl to be reported
> > > > relates to the ARM architecture in 2008.[1] Attempts to resolve
> > > > this issue turned out unsuccessful so far.[2] Other usages have only
> > > > been reported as hear-say. If there are any legitiate and necessary
> > > > use-cases remaining, please speak out before the end of the grace
> > > > period until 2.6.3{5,6}(-rc1).
> > > 
> > > What's the point of speaking out?  You don't take any notice of people
> > > who do, and you continue your crusade of wanting to remove it.  Please,
> > > stop giving the impression that you give a damn of what people say about
> > > the ioctl interface.
> > 
> > The _only_ person who really has spoken out is you. All my requests to
> > actually see source code or actual use cases (e.g. which parts of the ioctl
> > do actually get called) did not lead to _anything_.
> 
> See the source code?  You clearly haven't been reading what I've been
> saying to you on the subject if you think I can produce source code.
> I've already explained this to you several times, but it seems to be
> constantly ignored.

That's why there is the _other_ alternative: "actual use cases (e.g. which
parts of the ioctl do actually get called)". For this, you only need to be
able to update/modify the kernel. More than two years ago, you signalised
to do exactly this:

| I'll spend some time this coming weekend working out precisely what it
| requires from the ioctl interface - maybe we can have a cut-down ioctl
| interface that bolts straight on as an "add on" to the new controls
| without being too invasive, while still allowing its PCMCIA bits to
| work.

[ http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2008-April/005450.html ]

I haven't heard anything about the result of this experiment, even though
asking a number of times (e.g.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2010-January/006740.html ).

Best,
	Dominik
--
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/