linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] ACPI, PCI: avoid building pci

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, 28 Jan 2013 14:00:46 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] ACPI, PCI: avoid building pci_slot as module

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
...
>> If bios have messed up slot name or idx, we will get strange 1-1....
>> other crazy name.
>>
>> if you really need to put it as built-in, may need to some command
>> line that user could switch it off.
>
> It would save us all a lot of time if you gave an example and worked
> through the scenario where this is a problem.
>
> We already have the choice of having pci_slot built-in, so if there's
> a bug in that config, we already have the bug.  This patch merely
> removes a config where the bug might be covered up.


for distribution, current it is with module, so user could blacklist
in module.conf

Now with built-in or not, distribution will have it built-in, and user
have no chance to
disable it.

> I don't know why "adding a command line switch" appeals to you as the
> solution to every problem.  As far as I'm concerned that's not a
> solution to ANY problem.  It might be a band-aid to enable users to
> limp along while we figure out a correct solution, but it's certainly
> not a resolution.

Looks like you want to remove command line support, right ?

Yinghai
--
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/