linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] platform/x86: gigabyte-wmi: remove allowlist

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: <517f2742-75c6-4f1e-ad97-6a4a4328e74b@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:49:45 +0000
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] platform/x86: gigabyte-wmi: remove allowlist

On 2023-03-27 15:15:06+0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 3/25/23 17:48, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Having to maintain a per-system allowlist is burdensome and confusing
> > for users, drop it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > ---
> > 
> > I propose to keep this in -next for two cycles or so to make sure it
> > does not break anything.
> 
> I think dropping this is a good idea (given the current experience with
> the driver), but keeping the dropping of the list in -next for 2 cycles
> is somewhat tricky. Normally once the final e.g. 6.3 is released I take
> the pdx86/for-next branch *as-is* and use that to send a pull-req to
> Linus, so that Linus gets send a hash which has been tested in linux-next
> for a while before sending it to him.
> 
> Dropping this patch at that point would mean generating a new hash,
> which is a bit meh. I can do that but I would prefer to just limit
> testing to 1 full cycle.
> 
> Maybe you can send me a non RFC version of this patch once 6.4-rc1 is out?
> Then I can add that to for-next right away and then we can get a full
> cycle of -next testing that way.
> 
> Would that work for you?

Absolutely, will do.

Thanks,
Thomas