linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] HID for 6.3

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: <CAHk-=wiMd3HJ9m_GFHa4qY_baRGGjcUv3gEQiMpL1_VQBFZSfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:23:42 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] HID for 6.3

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:16 AM Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> - HID-BPF infrastructure: this allows to start using HID-BPF.

I really don't think this should default to being enabled when there
doesn't seem to be any actual useful use-cases for it.

So why does it have that

        default HID_SUPPORT

that turns it on if HID is on, and

        If unsure, say Y.

in the help message?

I check for these things, because developers always think that THEIR
code is so magically important and everybody should care. And that's
simply not true. If we have been able to do without HID_BPF before,
then it certainly didn't magically become important for everybody just
by virtue of existing.

The *only* things that should be "default y" are basically new gating
questions (like the new gating question of "do you want HID at all",
when we didn't use to even ask), or things that cure cancer or solve
world hunger.

                Linus