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]

Message-Id: <201412201010.18151@pali>
Date:	Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:10:17 +0100
From:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
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 Wednesday 03 December 2014 19:03:37 Darren Hart wrote:
> 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.ht
> > ml
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05924.h
> > tml
> 
> 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, so how you decided? Now when patches are in linus tree, 
are you going to send them to stable tree?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)