netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: phy: don't bind genphy in phy_attach_direct if the specific driver defers probe

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:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 23:48:22 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: phy: don't bind genphy in
 phy_attach_direct if the specific driver defers probe

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 01:04:19AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Removing a lock and then running the kernel is a down right stupid
> way to test to see if a lock is necessary.
> 
> That approach is like having built a iron bridge, covered it in paint,
> then you remove most the bolts, and then test to see whether it's safe
> for vehicles to travel over it by riding your bicycle across it and
> declaring it safe.
> 
> Sorry, but if you think "remove lock, run kernel, if it works fine
> the lock is unnecessary" is a valid approach, then you've just
> disqualified yourself from discussing this topic any further.
> Locking is done by knowing the code and code analysis, not by
> playing "does the code fail if I remove it" games. I am utterly
> shocked that you think that this is a valid approach.

... and this is exactly why you will no longer get any attention from me
on this topic. Good luck.