linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2,5/5] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache

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: <20200416063034.GB299193@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:30:34 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel@...o.com,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2,5/5] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 02:27:51PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "error no valid uio-map configured\n");
> > > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +		goto err_info_free_internel;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	info->version = "0.1.0";
> > 
> > Could you define some DRIVER_VERSION in the top of the file next to 
> > DRIVER_NAME instead of hard coding in the middle on a function ?
> 
> That's what v1 had, and Greg KH said to remove it.  I'm guessing that he
> thought it was the common-but-pointless practice of having the driver print a
> version number that never gets updated, rather than something the UIO API
> (unfortunately, compared to a feature query interface) expects.  That said,
> I'm not sure what the value is of making it a macro since it should only be
> used once, that use is self documenting, it isn't tunable, etc.  Though if
> this isn't a macro, UIO_NAME also shouldn't be (and if it is made a macro
> again, it should be UIO_VERSION, not DRIVER_VERSION).
> 
> Does this really need a three-part version scheme?  What's wrong with a
> version of "1", to be changed to "2" in the hopefully-unlikely event that the
> userspace API changes?  Assuming UIO is used for this at all, which doesn't
> seem like a great fit to me.

No driver version numbers at all please, they do not make any sense when
the driver is included in the kernel tree.

greg k-h