linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport

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, 10 Jul 2014 21:32:59 +0400
From:	"Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey@....msu.ru>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-parport <linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Heiko Andreas Sommer <hsommer@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] Add force_epp module option for parport_pc.

2014-07-10 21:09 GMT+04:00 Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:
> 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" <matwey.kornilov@...il.com>
>> >>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?

No, this would not...

> Or did I read the patch incorrectly?

Maybe I've implemented something incorrectly? I think I suggested
exactly inverse thing: the check is disabled only when the option is
touched by user:

!force_epp && intel_bug_present(pb) <=> intel_bug_present(pb) (given
that force_epp is false)

> Why not implement Alan's suggestion?

Why not, if you are fine with it. Are you sure that PPro was turning point?
--
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/