On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 11:54:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > No, drivers should NOT have to do that in their .probe() function, > > that's what we moved away from decades ago! The match function should > > handle all of that for you, otherwise it's contant duplication > > everywhere that is unneeded. > > Well then you have to accept that root can provoke a null pointer > exception (e.g. by forcing the pwm-tegra driver on a device) because at > least with today's platform bus match function such a match is ok.
Agreed, yes, root can cause a crash and can do tons of horrible things much worse than this, that's not the issue. That's why this taint is there, to make it obvious that this is not a "real" bug at all. > > Please, learn from our history, don't make the same mistakes. > > > > Now I might be convinced that driver_override is the way to go here, but > > it still feels really odd as again, bind/unbind was created as a driver > > debugging option only, it should NOT be a normal operation that any user > > should rely on. The driver should "just work" properly instead, without > > requiring manual bind work, as that's not a good model at all. > > I agree in principle, but (in my case wifi) drivers are buggy sometimes > (due to missing documentation and/or engineering effort) and being able > to rebind the driver instead of rebooting to get a working device again > is very useful. Fine, use it! Just don't expect that to be "normal". > So yes, theoretically bind/unbind isn't needed, but theory and practise > differ in practise. Agreed, but again, don't rely on this as a "real" solution fo ranything. > OK, as a compromise: Let's keep the taint (after all that's not > destroying any functionality, just adding a hint for bug reports), > and make driver_override opt-in, which should close an attack surface > (mostly for fuzzers?) and so reduce the amount of bug reports instead of > marking a part of them as tainted only. How is that going to change anything? Confused. greg k-h
