linux-kernel - Re: Public ridicule due to sound/soc/soc-core.c abuse of the driver model

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: <20120109203129.GA25743@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:31:30 -0800
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Frank Mandarino <fmandarino@...relia.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Public ridicule due to sound/soc/soc-core.c abuse of the driver
 model

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:11:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 07:52:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Trying to make any sort of modification to code this fragile is risky,
> > especially during what's supposed to be a stabalization phase (which is
> > what Greg is requesting).  It just seems completely irresponsible for
> > something that isn't actually a practical problem.

> I find it hard to believe that ignoring the driver model is not a
> "practical" problem :)

> For details as to why this is a problem, please see the kobject.txt
> file.

Sure, I'm fully aware of the issue.  The reason this is so painful to
work with is that AC'97 is just generally doing a really bad job of
using the driver model.

> Please fix this up, as you have seen, people end up cutting-and-pasting
> bad code.

In my copious free time, but like I say trying to do this for 3.3 (you
only posted *after* the merge window opened) is just nuts and I'd rather
hope someone who cares about AC'97 systems will come forward and work on
it (having one would be a real bonus).  If people actually had problems
we were fixing that'd be one thing but if they do they're being
extremely quiet about it.

If it's code like the rtd devices which is reasonably sensible and
stable that's one thing but wading into code we know is fragile for
what's essentially a warning fix is completely disproportionate.  It's
not like we'd actually make a substantial improvement in the overall
code quality or robustness, if anyone's using AC'97 as a reference for
how to do this stuff they're going to have a bunch of other issues to
work through.
--
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/