linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] of/platform: Add functional dependency link from DT bindings

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:49:24 -0700
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] of/platform: Add functional dependency link from
 DT bindings

On 7/16/19 3:56 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:05 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/15/19 11:40 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> Replying again because the previous email accidentally included HTML.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to reconsider the wording Frank. Your
>>> intention was clear to me in the first email too.
>>>
>>> A kernel command line option can also completely disable this
>>> functionality easily and cleanly. Can we pick that as an option? I've
>>> an implementation of that in the v5 series I sent out last week.
>>
>> Yes, Rob suggested a command line option for debugging, and I am fine with
>> that.  But even with that, I would like a lot of testing so that we have a
>> chance of finding systems that have trouble with the changes and could
>> potentially be fixed before impacting a large number of users.
> 
> Leaving it in -next for more than a cycle will not help. There's some

I have to agree with your scepticism of the value of -next for this
specific case.  But I think there is a _tiny_ potential of additional
testing if the feature is in more than one -next cycle.

> number of users who test linux-next. Then there's more that test -rc
> kernels. Then there's more that test final releases and/or stable
> kernels. Probably, the more stable the h/w, the more it tends to be
> latter groups. (I don't get reports of breaking PowerMacs with the
> changes sitting in linux-next.)
> 
> My main worry about this being off by default is it won't get tested.
> I'm not sure there's enough interest to drive folks to turn it on and
> test. Maybe it needs to be on until we see breakage.

Agreed, but worried about the potential disruption when breakage
occurs.

-Frank

> 
> Rob
> .
>