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  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, 21 Dec 2017 12:10:46 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <>
To:     "Ghorai, Sukumar" <>
Cc:     Brian Norris <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Marcel Holtmann <>,
        Oliver Neukum <>,
        "" <>,
        "Bag, Amit K" <>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        Todd Broch <>,
        Rajat Jain <>,
        Miao Chou <>,
        "Rao Pv, Sadashiva" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 009/115] Bluetooth: btusb: driver to enable the
 usb-wakeup feature

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 07:23:27PM +0000, Ghorai, Sukumar wrote:
> >> >Could you ever? If not, that looks like a feature request to me...
> >> Agree, feature request... however  we need this feature for rapid use of
> >Bluetooth LE devices.
> >
> >Is that what -stable is for now? For getting your pet feature enabled more
> >quickly? I thought that's what Linaro was for, or something like that.
> >
> >Besides the poor reasoning of the above (IMO): isn't that something you can also
> >configure in user space? So, upgrade user space (e.g., BlueZ) to resolve the
> >regressions that have been reported, then write the appropriate udev rules to
> >turn this on? Or is that too "slow" for you?
> Free to take decision..
> I understand this feature is creating instability in other area. However -
> 1. the  problem will remain same when enable the usb-wakeup feature form
> kernel or user-space or udev rule, and as long LE device is connected.

There is a slight difference of leaving the decision to the user (or to
userspace) or forcing it down the throat of everyone by adding it to the

Your statement "I understand this feature is creating instability in other
area" should really be a wakeup call. It almost sounds like you are aware
that it is causing problems, but you don't care because it fits _your_
needs. I hope that is not the case, but if it is, please keep in mind
that you are not the only user of the Linux kernel.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists