linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] SPI broken for SPI based panel drivers

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:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 09:34:51 -0500
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] SPI broken for SPI based panel drivers

Hi Linus,

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> I don't know if much can be done about it other than
> having better programmers than me at the task. Or
> less tired when they write the patch. etc.

I don't think that we have many programmers that are
better than you :)

IMHO the fundamental dilemma is between features,
security and agility on the one hand, and stability on
the other. Too much emphasis on stability, and one
ends up with a system which is hard to change, i.e.
improve or keep secure. A system like that runs the
real risk of being rapidly overtaken by a more nimble
alternative.

More testing is good and will make breakages rarer,
but I guess we need to be realistic here and realize
that even with a huge community effort, we might
never get 100% or even 80% test coverage.

But to be honest these sound like questions for the
Greg KHs and Torvaldses of this world, not for me.