linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/powernv: remove unused NPU DMA code

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: <027a5095-a22c-2799-8ff6-42d0bc4d2bc9@ozlabs.ru>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:21:55 +1000
From:   Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/powernv: remove unused NPU DMA code

On 26/06/2019 17:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:44:38AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/06/2019 00:52, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> None of these routines were ever used anywhere in the kernel tree
>>> since they were added to the kernel.
>>
>>
>> So none of my comments has been addressed. Nice.
> 
> Which comment?  Last time I asked you complaint "it is still used in
> exactly the same way as before" which you later clarified that you
> have a hidden out of tree user somewhere, and you only objected to

It is not hidden, anyone can download and inspect that GPL driver.

> the word "dead".  That has been fixed and there were no further
> comments.

You still have it in the cover letter so at very least 3/4 is not a part
of this patchset then.

And I still want to see a formal statement about out-of-tree drivers
support/tolerance. If you manage to remove this code, I'll have to post
a revert (again and again) but I would rather know the exact list of
what we do and what we do not do about such drivers and if the list 1)
exists 2) is reasonable then I could try to come up with a better
solution or point others to the policy and push them to do the right
thing. Right now it is just you pretending that the nVidia driver does
not exist, this is not helping. Thanks,

-- 
Alexey