linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] usb: gadget: Add uevent to notify userspace

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, 22 Sep 2016 13:50:13 -0700
From:   Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: gadget: Add uevent to notify userspace

Hi all,

I do agree that udc-core's uevents can potentially be used here.
I will check the complete list of uevents sent by the udc-core's
usb_gadget_set_state function and see if the userspace is happy to work with it.
Now that Android is starting to use the configfs driver, it might be
much easier.

Android userspace always relies on uevents to notify the users. This is might
be the right opportunity to dig into the uevents fired by the udc-core code
and shift to it.

I will come back with questions/ findings.

Thanks.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:38:30PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:41:09PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
> > > OK. I will talk with Badhri if I can upstream these.
>
> > That's not an issue, you can keep the "From:" line on it, if you got it
> > in a legal way, and then just have your signed off by on it, go read the
> > DCO for the specifics.  I don't know why someone else told you
> > otherwise.
>
> Given the weakness people have in understanding the legal part of
> signoffs it seems very unwise to just trust that they've actually
> got everything clearly lined up and IME when they're missing they've
> often just been removed or sometimes there's a very good reason why the
> original author didn't provide a signoff.  It seems safer for everyone
> to query what's going on and it's been fairly unusual that it's anything
> other than a mistake.