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  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, 10 Jul 2014 10:09:54 -0700
From:	Greg KH <>
To:	"Matwey V. Kornilov" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport_pc.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:56:15AM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:01:51AM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> >>>From cf37d0cc4d51da5c0b368e1f5ab05082c041d1e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>From: "Matwey V. Kornilov" <>
> >>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:08:45 +0400
> >>Subject: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport_pc.
> >>
> >>The detection of Intel EPP bug is known to produce much false positives.
> >>The new option is introduced to force enable EPP in spite of the test result.
> Hi,
> First of all, maybe I missed something fundamental, or did something wrong,
> but I can't understand how is it going to break working systems?

I thought you disabled the quirk test and now rely on the module option
instead.  That would require a machine that was happily relying on the
quirk test to now be forced to add a module option, right?

Or did I read the patch incorrectly?

Why not implement Alan's suggestion?


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists