linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] iio: core: register chardev only if needed

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: <CAHp75VcxZd1xW+ayi_km3zCYKV3aC1VRJ5bwyVpevZkvgg_ipw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:54:15 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: core: register chardev only if needed

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:45 PM Alexandru Ardelean
<ardeleanalex@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:55 AM Alexandru Ardelean
> > <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com> wrote:

...

> > Are you sure there is no user space application that doesn't rely on
> > character device to be always present?
>
> Nope.
> I'm not sure.
> I'm also not completely sure how Jonathan feels about this patch being
> added now [so late].
>
> Though, technically if the chardev was already there, without all the
> control in place [to enable IIO buffers and other stuff through the
> chardev] then it's technically just a "marker" file.
> Which arguably is a lot to have (i.e. chardev that should be unusable).
>
> If it is usable with no control in place for buffers or other stuff
> (i.e. I missed something), then I also don't know.
>
> So, this patch on it's own can still be interpreted as an RFC.
> See:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20201121180246.772ad299@archlinux/

Don't take me wrong, I'm not against a good change (I doesn't like
dangling files), but it might break some use cases.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko