linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211112141045.55c8dfdf@eldfell>
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:10:45 +0200
From:   Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line
 parameter logic

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:20:14 +0100
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >>>
> >>> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing
> >>> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver.
> >>> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO  
> >>
> >> Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
> >> Is that established kernel terminology?
> >>
> >> I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
> >> loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
> >> the driver that would not consult this function, right?  
> > 
> > We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be 
> > called generic or firmware driver.
> > 
> > My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation 
> > detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc 
> > driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test 
> > for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of 
> > the driver and not even load it.
> > 
> > How about we invert the test function and use something like
> > 
> >   bool drm_firmware_drivers_only()
> >  
> 
> That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me.

I'm not going to argue against that. :-)


Thanks,
pq

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped