netdev - Re: [PATCH net 001/117] mac80211: set .owner to THIS_MODULE in debugfs

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]

Date:   Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:09:10 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, wil6210@....qualcomm.com,
        b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 001/117] mac80211: set .owner to THIS_MODULE in debugfs_netdev.c

Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:

> On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 15:50 +0000, Taehee Yoo wrote:
>> If THIS_MODULE is not set, the module would be removed while debugfs is
>> being used.
>> It eventually makes kernel panic.
>> 
> Wow, 117 practically identical patches? No thanks ...
>
> Can you merge the ones that belong to a single driver?
>
> net/mac80211/ -> mac80211
> net/wireless/ -> cfg80211
>
> etc.
>
> I don't think we need more than one patch for each driver/subsystem.

Yes, one patch per driver is much better. And never send 100 patches in
one go, I will automatically drop these even without looking.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches