linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?

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: <4ED90BFD.3040805@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:33:49 -0200
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	HoP <jpetrous@...il.com>
CC:	Andreas Oberritter <obi@...uxtv.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because
 of worrying about possible misusage?

On 02-12-2011 09:57, HoP wrote:

> If you want to disscuss,

No, I don't want. There are architectural issues on your solution. As I said,
from the Kernel POV, just the network drivers is enough to run *any* client-server
solution on any OS that uses the TCP/IP stack. All streaming applications (DVB
or not) have their solution without requiring any virtual driver, using the TCP/IP
stack. You still think that your solution is technically better than theirs.
So, we agree do disagree on that matter.

 From my side, I won't merge it due to the already explained reasons.
Mauro.

--
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/