linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Revert "use component prefix when checking widget names"

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: <a59d60bf-6bbc-c65f-bd77-2b1bc98b0d22@opensource.cirrus.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:29:30 +0100
From:   Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>, <shumingf@...ltek.com>,
        <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Revert "use component prefix when checking
 widget names"

On 28/07/2021 17:09, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:55:23AM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> 
>> I don't mind if someone wants to change the core dapm functions if that
>> is generally useful, providing that it also updates all callers of those
>> functions to still work.
> 
>> Changing the behaviour of core code to fix the Realtek driver without
>> updating other callers of those functions is a problem.
> 
> The thing here is that nobody would have thought that that any caller
> would have been open coding this stuff like the component things were,

On the contrary, since that was the only way to use these functions with
a prefixed component it's entirely possible that there is code already
adding the prefix. Why would you expect nobody has ever written code
that works?

> it's simply the wrong abstraction level to be implementing something

Ok, but that doesn't mean that it could never have happened.

> like this so people wouldn't think of auditing the callers to find uses

I don't think that it's either safe or desirable to skip checking how
callers use functionality that you want to change. My understanding of
Linux development protocol was that if you make a change that affects
other code, you are responsible for updating that other code to match.
Regardless of whether you agree with how that other code was
implemented. It creates a lot of overhead for everyone if it's ok to
make changes without trying to fix up other code that is affected by
that change.