On Wednesday 19 April 2017 18:29:53 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > As wrote above, I'm fine with explicit whitelist of WMI GUIDs which > > will be exported to userspace after communication with vendor. > > What about GUID's not yet used by kernel drivers? Would those > default to whitelist default to blacklist? My preference would be > to default to whitelist. This allows new GUID's to be added later > without needing to modify kernel for something that kernel won't > need to do anything immediately. I understood it as there would be explicit whitelist in kernel and new GUIDs would be needed to add into whitelist, even those which do not have kernel wmi driver. Exporting all GUIDs (to userspace) which are not bind to kernel driver has one big problem. If kernel introduce new wmi driver for such GUID then it block userspace to access it or at least would need to provide audit filter and something would be probably filtered. It means that some userspace applications which would use that GUIDs stops working after upgrading to new kernel. And we can be in situation where *user* need to decide: either use 3rd party userspace application from vendor which provide some special settings for your laptop, or use kernel module which provides standard rfkill/led/input class driver. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
