linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dell-laptop: rfkill blacklist Dell XPS 13z, 15z

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 16:48:24 -0500
From:	Mario Limonciello <mario_limonciello@...l.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dell-laptop: rfkill blacklist Dell XPS 13z, 15z



On 05/14/2012 04:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:21:17PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>
>> The outliers of Inspiron and XPS don't seem to follow the interface as
>> explicitly.  It is not broken on Windows.  I don't have an
>> understanding why it's not, but conjecture that it's a different
>> interface being used on these that I don't have information on yet.
> If we're using a different interface to Windows then we're still doing
> it wrong. I'll take patches that port us to the interface that's
> actually being used, but I won't take patches that just try to cover up
> a broken interface that the vendor doesn't test.
The problems were exposed on newer XPS laptops because those platforms were not tested during platform development.  There really isn't a scalable way to represent whether a platform was or wasn't tested during development.  In a lot of situation things just work.  I would like to do the right thing for the users with what information and resources are available right now to put them in a better state.  An aggressive approach of not taking patches to cover a broken interface won't fix the problem of not testing machines already in the market, it will just put end users of the kernel module at a disadvantage.
>> You would be better to only match on Latitude and Vostro and anything
>> else that people want to opt in via a paramater than to remove the
>> interface entirely IMO.
> If Windows uses this interface on Latitude and Vostro then I'll do that,
> but otherwise no.
The problem is this isn't something that can be quantified to match all different Dell laptops.  Specifications, ODMS, IBVs, and requirements change over time on different laptops so this kernel module is really just a line of best fit.  You can be sure the matching driver and tool on the windows side will rev and collect special case scenarios as laptops come out.  If you want to continue to best represent things going forward do this:

1) Don't blacklist any Latitude or Vostro.  These are tested during platform development.
2) Leave those compal_laptop supported ones blacklisted.
3) Blacklist 2010-2012 XPS.  These are currently not tested during platform development.
4) If problems start to show up on Inspiron, blacklist them invidually.  These platforms are currently tested during platform development though, so hopefully issues don't crop up.
--
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/