linux-kernel - Re: New sysfs interface for privacy screens

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:   Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:34:07 -0300
From:   Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mat King <mathewk@...gle.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Schremmer <alex@...xanderweb.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: New sysfs interface for privacy screens

On Thu, 03 Oct 2019, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> I guess... although the Thinkpad code hasn't added any standard
> interfaces (no other laptop should be placing controls for a privacy
> screen in /proc/acpi/ibm/... ). Maybe its not too late.

As far as I am concerned, it is *not* too late.  And you can always have
a driver-private way of messing with something, and a more generic way
of doing the same thing.

thinkpad-acpi will always welcome patches switching to the new generic
way (as long as we can have a deprecation period *for long-time-used
facilities* -- which is not the case of the privacy screen, no
deprecation period need there).

The privacy thing is too new, feel free to design a generic one and
send in a patch *switching* thinkpad-acpi to the new generic one.

I would ACK that.  If the subsystem maintainer also agrees, (and nobody
*seriously* complain about it from userspace), the private interface
would be gone just like that.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh