linux-kernel - Re: [patch] enable userspace cpu core voltage control with acpi-cpufreq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:24:57 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	colin.michael@...nline.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] enable userspace cpu core voltage control with
	acpi-cpufreq

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:56:13PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
 > <colin.michael@...nline.de> writes:
 > 
 > > i want to make a patch known that provides a userspace interface to control the core voltage of a computer processor(s).
 > 
 > That would be essentially linux supported undervolting which 
 > for stability is as bad as overclocking. The problem is that 
 > such games tend to generate weird kernel crashes and then
 > chew up development issues when kernel hackers have to chase
 > ghost bugs. I don't think we should support it. Developer 
 > time is too precious.
 
Seconded.  Exactly the same reasons I've refused to merge patches
into cpufreq to allow arbitrary tables to override BIOS tables.
Or patches to remove boundary checks.   Even when correctly
implemented, this stuff can be fragile as hell, so introducing
more things that cast doubt over its stability isn't something
I'm keen on at all.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/