linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] coreboot table bus and framebuffer driver

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:22:04 +0000
From:   Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     samuel@...lland.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Coreboot <coreboot@...eboot.org>,
        Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] coreboot table bus and framebuffer driver

[resend in plain text]

> It would be great to get some of the google developers to ack these, as
> this touches their code...

 From the coreboot point of view I guess we're fine with it since it claims
to maintain all of the existing functionality. It's just changing the
kernel-level plumbing for these drivers and I don't really have the
expertise to comment on whether this is better or worse than the old code
(maybe Dmitry or Guenter will?). It seems a little odd to me to call this a
"bus", but if we think that's the most fitting abstraction the kernel has
for it, I'm okay with that. All I care about is that it will work (in all
combinations... e.g. regardless of probe order and even if some parts are
compiled as modules and loaded/unloaded at runtime).