linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bus: mhi: host: Add userspace character interface

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 09:14:19 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...ll.ch>, <mhi@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pranjal Ramajor Asha Kanojiya <quic_pkanojiy@...cinc.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus: mhi: host: Add userspace character interface

On Wed, 31 May 2023 09:04:10 -0600 Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> I think Mani I looking for some "guidance" on the "architecture", and 
> frankly so am I.  An official Ack from Jakub might not be quite the 
> right thing at this stage, but at-least Jakub could come in and say he 
> isn't planning on NACKing this right off the bat, in particular because 
> this functionality can be used by WWAN devices which seems to be what 
> caused the mess the last time around.
> 
> We've gone full circle here.  This functionality was proposed as part of 
> the bus.  Jakub came in an NACKed that, which resulted in the WWAN 
> subsystem and the guidance that this functionally belongs with the 
> devices.  I tried to put it with the AIC100/QAIC device based on that, 
> and that got NACKed by Daniel (GPU) saying that this belongs with the 
> bus.  You (Greg) seemed to agree with Daniel on that.
> 
> Fixing kernel robot tests is one thing (I haven't seen any reports on 
> this iteration), but if there is no agreement on where this lives, isn't 
> it DOA?
> 
> In summary, if you don't like this, please give some clear guidance. 
> Greg, you've told me in the past that you don't discuss "architecture" 
> without seeing the code.  Here is some code.  I don't claim it is 
> perfect (you mentioned the QAIC version had some issues you were going 
> to help with), but I would like to see some input.

Nothing changed here as far as I'm concerned.

But while I have you -- you should probably discuss your broader
engagement in the upstream community with someone like Greg. The right
balance between throwing code at us and supporting maintainers. 
I mean real maintainers of shared subsystems, not your own stuff.