Re: Initcall ordering problem (TTY vs modprobe vs MD5) andcryptomgr problem

From: Olivier Galibert
Date: Fri Aug 06 2010 - 04:06:57 EST

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:50:04AM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> You should also realize that crypto drivers are very much *NOT* in the
> same situation as most other drivers. Without this test, adding a new
> crypto hardware driver to the kernel is a completely unsafe operation,
> because it could completely break users setups. You have previously
> said you're fine accepting new drivers even after the initial merge
> window because they can't break anything, but in crypto that's not
> true.

Maybe Linus would be happier if the self-tests were limited (by
default) to the hardware accelerators? Having a software backup and
the risk of data loss indeed makes things different.

Of course in practice without the tests your boot would probably just
have failed. Badly-decrypted root partitions tend to be noticed as
such long before trying to write to them. Then you would have bitched
on the list and the driver would have been fixed or removed faster
than having to wait for you (or other people with the hardware issue)
to notice the spew in dmesg.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at