linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dmatest: do not allow to interrupt ongoing tests

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:15:25 +0530
From:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"djbw@...com" <djbw@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmatest: do not allow to interrupt ongoing tests

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 06:10:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:11:07AM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 23:55 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: 
> > > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > 
> > > > When user interrupts ongoing transfers the dmatest may end up with console
> > > > lockup, oops, or data mismatch. This patch prevents user to abort any ongoing
> > > > test.
> > > 
> > > Personally I would be against such a change. What about interrupting the 
> > > test with rmmod?
> > >  Is it still possible after this your patch or not? If not 
> > > - this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Why don't we just fix those 
> > > bugs, that you're describing?
> > 
> > The behaviour of the module is returned to the same page by this patch
> > as it was before (w/o debugfs).
> > 
> > The user can interrupt tests by rmmod, but it will take time up to
> > timeout.
> > 
> > I appreciate if you can do a deeper analysis of what happened in
> > case Will reported.
> 
> Did this query hold up the application of this patch? I'd really like to see
> *something* in 3.10, otherwise dmatest will be broken.
I though we had some data corruption on subsequent tests, or was that different
one?

--
~Vinod
--
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/