linux-kernel - Re: Why set .suppress_bind_attrs even though .remove() implemented?

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, 26 Jul 2022 08:26:43 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc:     <helgaas@...nel.org>, <pali@...nel.org>, <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        <kishon@...com>, <songxiaowei@...ilicon.com>,
        <wangbinghui@...ilicon.com>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        <ryder.lee@...iatek.com>, <jianjun.wang@...iatek.com>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <kw@...ux.com>,
        <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: Why set .suppress_bind_attrs even though .remove() implemented?

On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 18:49:05 +0100,
<Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com> wrote:
> 
> Sorry to butt back in here - but I am taking this to mean that rather
> than add a remove callback for the microchip pci controller driver when
> making it buildable as a module it would instead be better to forgo that
> entirely and prevent unloading the module (since it does INTX & MSI).
> 
> Would that be an accurate assessment?

Yes.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.