linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: use regulator name for sysfs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:58:54 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Shawn Joo <sjoo@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: use regulator name for sysfs

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:49:26PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 12:43 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > It's certainly insane to change this based on the driver and given
> > that sysfs is supposed to be an ABI it's questionable if we should
> > do it at all.  We certainly can't use the descriptor name as that's
> > very likely to clash if you have more than one PMIC.  Taking a
> > glance through sysfs on my system what we're doing at the minute is
> > pretty idiomatic, sysfs isn't really intended for humans but rather
> > for machines to prettify.

> Does the ABI describe just the layout of the sysfs filesystem, or also
> the names of instances? Certainly the list of names of regulators

Turns out we didn't bother documenting the directory naming.

> won't be in any ABI documentation. That said, I suppose for existing
> platforms it'd probably be legitimate for someone to have looked there
> and seen the names and assumed they would never change on that
> particular platform, so changing them would break an implicit ABI.

Indeed, plus the information is all there.  Like I say the current
pattern seems idiomatic for sysfs but really the issue with the current
patch is the per driver thing which just doesn't make sense.

> >> Another place a similar change might be useful is debugfs.

> > debugfs already uses more human readable names, it uses the supply
> > name (which is what we should be using if we were going to do
> > anything as it really ought to be unique already).

> Oh so it does. Was this a recent change? I could have sworn I saw lots
> of regulator.n there, but perhaps I'm remembering sysfs.

It's always been the same.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)