linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] watchdog: sp805: Add clock-frequency property

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:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:05:40 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>,
        wim@...ux-watchdog.org, Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>,
        Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@...adcom.com>,
        Vikram Prakash <vikram.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] watchdog: sp805: Add clock-frequency property

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 08:39:50AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:30:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

> >
> > Typically new properties needs to registered or discussed in dsd@...ica.org
> > Though there's almost no activity on that list for more than a year now.
> > IIRC, the thread[1] gives kind of agreement that was reached after
> > elaborate discussion on _DSD properties.
> >
>
> I think you are saying that there are no real rules or governing body
> for _DSD properties, that _DSD properties are free for all, subject to no
> scrutiny, that a database with assigned _DSD properties does not exist,
> and that therefore there is no means for me to determine if this is an
> approved property.
>

Yes and no. The only intent of the review on dsd@...ica.org to catch
functional/non-compliance issues with the property. The vendor needs to
own it and ensure the support is added in the kernel before shipping it.

> What prevents someone else to use a different property name for the same
> driver and property next week, on a different product using the same
> hardware ?
>

Honestly nothing. But the agreement was vendor needs to proactively get
it reviewed and add the support. The community can reject if it has
functional/compliance issues.

There has been elaborate discussions in the past on this and I provided
the link to the final agreement on that. It's always better to avoid
using them as first option if possible, else get the review/agreement
that it's good to use property.

--
Regards,
Sudeep