linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rt-tests: backfire: Don't include asm/uaccess.h directly

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: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1909171611190.3853@planxty>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:12:36 +0200 (CEST)
From:   John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
cc:     Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        sebastian@...akpoint.cc, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt-tests: backfire: Don't include asm/uaccess.h
 directly



On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> On 2019-09-16 23:57:32 [+0200], John Kacur wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
> 
> Hmmm. I remember this thing came up years ago in the Debian BTS and then
> that backfire module got removed from the Debian package because there
> was no need for it.
> Just to clarify: is there any need to keep this module or do I mix up
> things?
> 
> Sebastian
> 

The cost of carrying the code should anyone wish to revive this is very 
small, and it wouldn't take much effort to get it going again.

It could go either way, I'm fine with carrying it for now.

John