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]

Message-ID: <86r08f3yj1.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:48:50 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
	Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,	Johan Hovold
 <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,	Xiaowei
 Song <songxiaowei@...ilicon.com>,	Binghui Wang <wangbinghui@...ilicon.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,	Ryder Lee
 <ryder.lee@...iatek.com>,	Jianjun Wang <jianjun.wang@...iatek.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,	Krzysztof Wilczyński
 <kw@...ux.com>,	Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why set .suppress_bind_attrs even though .remove() implemented?

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:25:26 +0100,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 08:50:11AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:23:35 +0100,
> > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > So can we proceed with the series making Qcom driver modular?
> > 
> > Who is volunteering to fix the drivers that will invariably explode
> > once we allow this?
> > 
> 
> Why should anyone volunteer first up? If the issue gets reported for a driver
> blowing up, then the driver has to be fixed by the maintainer or someone, just
> like any other bug.

You are introducing a new behaviour, and decide that it is fair game
to delegate the problems *you* introduced to someone else?

Maybe you should reconsider what it means to be a *responsible*
maintainer.

> From reading the thread, the major concern was disposing the IRQs before
> removing the domain and that is now taken care of. If you are worrying about a
> specific issue, please say so.

That concern still exists, and I haven't seen a *consistent* approach
encompassing all of the PCI controllers. What I've seen is a bunch of
point hacks addressing a local issue on a particular implementation.

I don't think that's the correct approach, but hey, what do I
understand about interrupts and kernel maintenance?

> 
> As a Qcom PCIe driver maintainer, I'd like to provide users/developers the
> flexibility to remove the driver for development purposes.

Sure, whatever.

	M.

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