linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] Documentation: gpio: add chardev userspace API documentation

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: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:34:28 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Phil Howard <phil@...getoid.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	brgl@...ev.pl, andy@...nel.org, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Documentation: gpio: add chardev userspace API
 documentation

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:27:50PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:02 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:40:34AM +0000, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > > You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so I'd probably soften to:
> > >
> > > Before abusing userspace APIs to bitbash drivers for your hardware you should
> > > read Documentation/driver-api/gpio/drivers-on-gpio.rst to see if your device has
> > > an existing kernel driver. If not, please consider contributing one.
> > >
> >
> > The note is is a rewording of a section of the existing sysfs documentation:
> >
> >     DO NOT ABUSE SYSFS TO CONTROL HARDWARE THAT HAS PROPER KERNEL DRIVERS.
> >     PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT AT Subsystem drivers using GPIO TO AVOID REINVENTING
> >     KERNEL WHEELS IN USERSPACE. I MEAN IT. REALLY.
> >
> > So I've already toned down the vineger.
>
> I wrote that and I recognized the strong wording.
>
> I have come with great regret to the conclusion that it is better to
> shout like this,
> note that the sentence is not directed to any specific person and that means
> it is more OK to be harsh. It is not feedback to anyone, it is black-and-yellow
> warning tape to not go into this dangerous area.
>
> I like the current wording.
>

Can you clarify which current wording?
Are you ok with the proposed chardev wording, or should I be more
closely following the sysfs?

Cheers,
Kent.