linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

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: <DG23XB4M0MLS.1ZHTFHJAUJSTH@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 18:41:18 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Laurent Pinchart" <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: "Tzung-Bi Shih" <tzungbi@...nel.org>, "Johan Hovold" <johan@...nel.org>,
 "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
 <rafael@...nel.org>, "Bartosz Golaszewski"
 <bartosz.golaszewski@....qualcomm.com>, "Linus Walleij"
 <linusw@...nel.org>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, "Shuah Khan"
 <shuah@...nel.org>, "Wolfram Sang" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 "Simona Vetter" <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>, "Dan Williams"
 <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>,
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

On Fri Jan 30, 2026 at 10:12 AM CET, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 03:01:50PM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
>> FWIW: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260129143733.45618-2-tzungbi@kernel.org/
>> and https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260129143733.45618-4-tzungbi@kernel.org/
>> are the proposed fixes.
>
> I won't review that, sorry. As multiple people said in this mail thread,
> the API needs to go back to the design board.

Of course, you are entirely free to choose what you want to review, but I think
the justification you give is not entirely fair.

The patch series was on the list since August, you were explicitly Cc'd from the
get-go.

In v3 you said:

"To be clear, I'm not against the API being merged for the use cases that would
benefit from it, but I don't want to see drivers using it to protect from the
cdev/unregistration race."

This was a reply to Bartosz saying:

"Yeah, I'm not against this going upstream. If more development is needed for
this to be usable in other parts of the kernel, that can be done gradually.
Literally no subsystem ever was perfect on day 1."

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there are no issues to be addressed. And I'm
also not saying that you never raised concerns, you clearly did.

But, given the above, I don't think it's fair to request a revert as a
precondition to give constructive feedback for improvements and fixes.

- Danilo

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/chrome-platform/20250912145416.GL31682@pendragon.ideasonboard.com/