linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] sound fixes for 5.8-rc1

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: <26a99d25-4333-9496-ad5d-b96f7b7e2a33@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:56:09 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Srini Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...aro.org>,
        Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sound fixes for 5.8-rc1



On 6/12/20 9:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:54:11AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
>> I think that those configuration errors are the problem and should be fixed
>> as a prerequisite to the removal of the duplication between
>> dpcm_playback/dpcm_capture/playback_only/capture_only. it may be painful and
>> generate noise for a while, but if we only throw a warning what are the odds
>> all those configuration errors will eventually be fixed?
> 
> Yeah, I'm kind of pessimistic about the likelyhood of people paying
> attention to warnings.
> 
>> If we need more time for validation on all platforms, then maybe we can
>> first relax the check for 5.8-rc1 as suggested by John, but re-add the
>> -EINVAL on -next to give a target of 5.9 with all configurations fixed?
> 
> I can't help feeling that it'd be postponing the inevitable, but perhaps
> I'm being overly pessimistic here.  The change did obviously go in quite
> late though so it's not the worst idea if you want to send the patch?

I see patches from Srinivas to fix the issue reported by John, so maybe 
apply those patches first and if we see another issue on another 
platform we relax the check?