linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] acrn: add the ACRN driver module

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:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 13:39:25 +0800
From:   "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] acrn: add the ACRN driver module



On 2019年08月19日 13:25, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:25AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019年08月16日 14:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25:41AM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote:
>>>> The first three patches are the changes under x86/acrn, which adds the
>>>> required APIs for the driver and reports the X2APIC caps.
>>>> The remaining patches add the ACRN driver module, which accepts the ioctl
>>>> from user-space and then communicate with the low-level ACRN hypervisor
>>>> by using hypercall.
>>>
>>> I have a problem with that: you're adding interfaces to arch/x86/ and
>>> its users go into staging. Why? Why not directly put the driver where
>>> it belongs, clean it up properly and submit it like everything else is
>>> submitted?
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and the concern.
>>
>> After taking a look at several driver examples(gma500, android), it seems
>> that they are firstly added into drivers/staging/XXX and then moved to
>> drivers/XXX after the driver becomes mature.
>> So we refer to this method to upstream ACRN driver part.
> 
> Those two examples are probably the worst examples to ever look at :)
> 
> The code quality of those submissions was horrible, gma500 took a very
> long time to clean up and there are parts of the android code that are
> still in staging to this day.
> 
>> If the new driver can also be added by skipping the staging approach,
>> we will refine it and then submit it in normal process.
> 
> That is the normal process, staging should not be needed at all for any
> code.  It is a fall-back for when the company involved has no idea of
> how to upstream their code, which should NOT be the case here.

Thanks for your explanation.

OK. We will submit it in normal process.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>