[Hardeneddrivers-discuss] RE: [cgl_discussion] Some Initial Comments on DDH-Spec-0.5h.pdf

Jeff Garzik jgarzik at pobox.com
Tue Sep 24 00:01:14 PDT 2002

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Oh, and don't forget that the hardware specification that drivers are
> written to, many times are not generally available greatly reducing 
> the pool of capable people who have the opportunity to review the and
> debug the drivers.  I would make it a requirement for a hardened
> driver that both the code and the hardware documentation be publicly
> available so the code can easily be reviewed by as many people as wish
> to.

This is a good point that bears highlighting.  Donald Becker's [and thus 
the kernel's] eepro100.c had certain bugs for years, simply because 
access to Intel E100 hardware docs was damn near impossible to obtain.

I don't see driver hardening being very feasible on such drivers, where 
the vendor refuses to allow kernel engineers access needed to get their 
hardware working and stable.  [why vendors want crappy Linux support, 
I'll never know]


P.S.  In all fairness, Intel is doing a really good job maintaining the 
e100 and e1000 drivers nowadays, and e100 docs should be public very 
soon.  [e1000 docs? who knows...]

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list