On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 07:15:12PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Mon Sep 28, 2026 at 6:46 PM CEST, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Note that different to Danilo's suggestion I don't differentiate between > > driver_overrides setup in userspace and those setup in kernel space. > > IMHO all are bad and there are alternatives for the legitimate cases. > > I agree that the implementation - i.e. (ab)using driver override - the > affected > subsystems have chosen is wrong. > > But, there is a difference between picking the wrong implementation and being > semantically wrong to a point that we need to taint the kernel. > > So, yes this should be cleaned up, but we should not taint the kernel for > otherwise correct code. Otherwise we could as well taint the kernel for every > other abuse of an API.
My position on that is: Do the global change now and help the subsystems
to clean up the mess. In my experice waiting with changes until all
affected parties are smooth with it is a recipe for failure.
> > I think applying this complete patch set and keeping fcbfaffee51a ("driver
> > core: add TAINT_FORCED_BIND for when userspace manually messes with devices
> > and
> > drivers") is too much, so this series serves mainly as discussion ground for
> > choosing a sane way to prevent fuzzing results of only mild interest and
> > stop
> > patch sets harding drivers for driver_override handling.
> > My preference would be to revert (or drop) fcbfaffee51a and then only
> > apply patch #3. Maybe also keep patch #2 to taint if
> > "allow_driver_override" is provided.
>
> Agreed, but as mentioned in [1], I think it is also reasonable to only keep
> TAINT_FORCED_BIND for buses that do not support hotplug in the first place.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/driver-core/[email protected]/
Fine for me, that would mean to apply the whole series and restrict
TAINT_FORCED_BIND to "static" busses.
Best regards
Uwe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
