linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] dell-wmi: Don't send unneeded keypresses

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:	Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:03:37 -0800
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>,
	mjg59@...f.ucam.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dell-wmi: Don't send unneeded keypresses

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:07:35PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2014 21:41:22 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2014-12-05 21:31:34, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 December 2014 14:34:32 Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:16:20AM +0100, Gabriele
> > > > Mazzotta
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Currently dell-wmi reports keypresses for WMI events
> > > > > that are notifications of changes performed by the
> > > > > BIOS. This patch series make sure that no keypresses
> > > > > are sent for those events so that nothing is done from
> > > > > userspace.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gabriele Mazzotta (3):
> > > > >   dell-wmi: Use appropriate keycode for radio state
> > > > >   changes dell-wmi: Don't report keypresses for radio
> > > > >   state changes
> > > > 
> > > > Merged into one patch, queued.
> > > > 
> > > > >   dell-wmi: Don't report keypresses on keybord
> > > > >   illumination change
> > > > 
> > > > Queued.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks Gabriele.
> > > 
> > > Darren, what do you think about sending patch into stable
> > > kernel?
> > 
> > I'd suggest against that. -stable is for "serious" bugs, and
> > we don't want to change this kind of behaviour in -stable
> > kernel.
> > 
> > 								Pavel
> 
> Ok, I agree that it is subjective how serious it is...
> Just to remind that patch fixing problem described in
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05922.html
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05924.html

I don't have any objection to sending this back to stable. Stable is for fixing
REAL bugs, as opposed to theorhetical races, etc. This is a "real" bug.

As to not chaning behavior, if it's OK for mainline, it's OK for stable. At
least that is my understanding of it. Folks are free to verify with Greg if they
disagree.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/