linux-kernel - Re: [2/3] mwifiex: support sysfs initiated device coredump

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: <5AA829A1.1090209@broadcom.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:42:25 +0100
From:   Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [2/3] mwifiex: support sysfs initiated device coredump

On 3/13/2018 2:10 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/12/2018 10:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since commit 3c47d19ff4dc ("drivers: base: add coredump driver ops")
>>>> it is possible to initiate a device coredump from user-space. This
>>>> patch adds support for it adding the .coredump() driver callback.
>>>> As there is no longer a need to initiate it through debugfs remove
>>>> that code.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
>>>
>>> Based on the discussion I assume this is ok to take to w-d-next. If that's not
>>> the case, please let me know ASAP.
>>
>> It is up to the mwifiex maintainers to decide, I guess. The ABI
>> documentation need to be revised and change the callback to void
>> return type. I am not sure what the best approach is. 1) apply this
>> and fix return type later, or 2) fix return type and resubmit this.
>> What is your opinion?
>
> I guess the callback change will go through Greg's tree? Then I suspect
> it's easier that you submit the callback change to Greg first and wait
> for it to trickle down to wireless-drivers-next (after the next merge
> window) and then I can apply the driver patches. Otherwise there might
> be a conflict between my and Greg's tree.

That was my assessment, but unfortunately Marcel already applied the 
btmrvl patch before I could reply. So how do I move from here? Option 1) 
revert brmrvl and fix callback return type, or 2) apply mwifiex patch 
and fix callback return type later for both drivers.

Regards,
Arend