linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] rfkill: Create "rfkill-airplane-mode" LED trigger

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: <20160519071639.GB17077@amd>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2016 09:16:39 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@...lessm.com,
	João Paulo Rechi Vita 
	<jprvita@...lessm.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] rfkill: Create "rfkill-airplane-mode" LED
 trigger

On Thu 2016-05-12 11:32:52, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 09:29 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > If userspace wants to control the manually, it can do just that --
> > control it manually. There should not be a need to "override the
> > default policy".
> 
> I'm still not buying this.
> 
> In the original situation, without these patches, userspace has to have
> a list of all LEDs that are supposed to indicate airplane mode.

Well, that's situation for many LEDs.

> With this patch only (without patch 2/3), userspace can look up the
> default trigger, but then has to change it, causing the necessary
> information to be lost immediately when you actually use it - that also
> seems like a bad idea.

We should not store "what kind of led this is" in a trigger. LED
subsystem seems to use suffix of LED name to do that. So if we
standartize, lets say "::rfkill" suffix for this, it should work and
follow existing practice.

> Now, if the LED subsystem had a really good way of specifying LED
> intent, and it was widely used, and rfkill didn't already concern
> itself with the rfkill status of all devices ... yeah maybe this
> wouldn't be needed. As it stands, I still think this is the best way
> forward.

There is one -- suffix in the LED name.
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html