From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:46:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:46:08 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:46333 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:46:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:51:15 -0400 From: Pete Zaitcev Message-Id: <200209211251.g8LCpFt23725@devserv.devel.redhat.com> To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: my review of the Device Driver Hardening Design Spec In-Reply-To: References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > - actually, what do any of these CONFIG_ options do, and why > would someone not want the CONFIG_DRIVER_ROBUST to be always > enabled? Probably performance blows when it is enabled. > In summary, I think that a lot of people have spent a lot of time in > creating this document, and the surrounding code that matches this > document. I really wish that a tiny bit of that effort had gone into > contacting the Linux kernel development community, and asking to work > with them on a project like this. Due to that not happening, and by > looking at the resultant spec and code, I'm really afraid the majority > of that time and effort will have been wasted. Eek. They never mentioned any code before now. In fact they explicitly said they weren't going to code before the spec was ready. -- Pete