On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:30:42 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 07:24:36 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Or for simplicity we could also be testing against skb_headlen() > > > since we don't expect any legit non-linear frames here? Dunno. > > > > I'll be glad to change this either way, your call. Given that this is > > an obsolete protocol that seems to only be a target for drive-by fuzzers > > to attack, whatever the simplest thing to do to quiet them up I'll be > > glad to implement. > > > > Or can we just delete this stuff entirely? :) > > Yes. > > My thinking is to delete hamradio, nfc, atm, caif.. [more to come] > Create GH repos which provide them as OOT modules. > Hopefully we can convince any existing users to switch to that. > > The only thing stopping me is the concern that this is just the softest > target and the LLMs will find something else to focus on which we can't > delete. I suspect any PCIe driver can be flooded with "aren't you > trusting the HW to provide valid responses here?" bullshit. > > But hey, let's try. I'll post a patch nuking all of hamradio later > today.
Well, either we "expunge" this code to OOT repos, or we mark it as broken and tell everyone that we don't take security fixes for anything that depends on BROKEN. I'd personally rather expunge. cc: workflows, we can't be the only ones still nursing Linux 2.2 code
