linux-kernel - Re: [ 01/82] Bluetooth: Always compile SCO and L2CAP in Bluetooth Core

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:13:41 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ben@...adent.org.uk
Cc:	gustavo@...ovan.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, ulisses@...fusion.mobi,
	marcel@...tmann.org, vinicius.gomes@...nbossa.org,
	linville@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [ 01/82] Bluetooth: Always compile SCO and L2CAP in Bluetooth
 Core

From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:04:32 +0000

> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 21:38 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:30:44PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
>> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:24:26 -0200
>> > 
>> > > Hi Ben,
>> > > 
>> > > * Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> [2012-11-14 05:39:34 +0000]:
>> > > 
>> > >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> > >> 
>> > >> ------------------
>> > >> 
>> > >> From: Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@...fusion.mobi>
>> > >> 
>> > >> commit f1e91e1640d808d332498a6b09b2bcd01462eff9 upstream.
>> > >> 
>> > >> The handling of SCO audio links and the L2CAP protocol are essential to
>> > >> any system with Bluetooth thus are always compiled in from now on.
>> > > 
>> > > I wonder if this could not break any kind of script or code people have that
>> > > refer directly to the sco and l2cap modules. Also I don't see this change as
>> > > really necessary for 3.2.
>> > 
>> > Agreed, I wish this had not been merged into -stable, I would have never
>> > submitted a patch like this myself.
>> 
>> This is required by:
>> 
>> commit ff03261adc8b4bdd8291f1783c079b53a892b429
>> Author: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...nbossa.org>
>> Date:   Thu Aug 23 21:32:44 2012 -0300
>> 
>>     Bluetooth: Fix sending a HCI Authorization Request over LE links
>>     
>>     commit d8343f125710fb596f7a88cd756679f14f4e77b9 upstream.
>> 
>> which was already applied.
> 
> So, do you think it's better to revert that in 3.2, or to go ahead with
> this?

I can't believe that just turning on bluetooth is going to force
enable these sub-protocols too, that's simply rediculous.  That
change should have never gone into the tree.

Do I _REALLY_ have to go back to validating all the bluetooth stuff by
hand when John Linville sends me pull requests?  Seriously?

I thought we were beyond that kind of bullshit after the coding style
fiasco.

Actually I have a better idea, how about John stops pulling the
bluetooth stuff into his tree, and instead the bluetooth folks have to
submit their changes individually to the netdev list.  I like that
scheme better.

Because I don't want John's wireless work held back by the garbage
these bluetooth guys keep submitting.
--
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/