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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:43:20 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	"Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey@....msu.ru>
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.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:32:59PM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> 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)

I don't understand, care to just resend the patches? I really don't
remember what the patch said...

> > Why not implement Alan's suggestion?
> 
> Why not, if you are fine with it. Are you sure that PPro was turning point?

If Alan says so, I believe him :)

greg k-h
--
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/