Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754338AbYHPG2Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:28:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752338AbYHPG2A (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:28:00 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:59852 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752193AbYHPG17 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:27:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:22:59 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Jesse Barnes Cc: Jean Delvare , Milton Miller , Michael Ellerman , linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] pci: dynids.use_driver_data considered harmful Message-ID: <20080816062259.GB20541@kroah.com> References: <200808151046.59590.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <20080815205500.1945916f@hyperion.delvare> <200808151215.02499.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808151215.02499.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1633 Lines: 37 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:01PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Friday, August 15, 2008 11:55 am Jean Delvare wrote: > > In fact we can do even better than that. We could accept from > > user-space only driver_data values which at least one device ID entry in > > the driver already uses. That should be fairly easy to implement, and > > would offer a level of safety an order of magnitude above what we have > > at the moment... And it works both ways: if 0 is not a valid data for > > some driver, that would force the user to provide a non-zero (and > > valid) data value. And it guarantees that the user can't ask for > > something the driver doesn't expect, so drivers don't even need extra > > checks. And no need for a use_driver_data flag either. > > Meaning a driver audit of the usage? Yeah that would be great. > > > The only drawback is that it prevents the user from passing a "new" > > data value even if it would be valid. But honestly, I don't expect that > > case to happen frequently... if ever at all. So I'd say the benefits > > totally outweight the drawback. > > > > If the interested people agree with the idea, I'll look into > > implementing it. > > Well the audit would show if user supplied "new" values are needed; otherwise > the approach sounds good to me. That sounds reasonable, and should work properly. No objection from me. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/