linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] scsi: ufs: Add configfs support for ufs provisioning

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:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:30:07 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "vinholikatti@...il.com" <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        "sayalil@...eaurora.org" <sayalil@...eaurora.org>,
        "riteshh@...eaurora.org" <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
        "evgreen@...omium.org" <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "subhashj@...eaurora.org" <subhashj@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org" <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
        "rnayak@...eaurora.org" <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] scsi: ufs: Add configfs support for ufs
 provisioning

On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 10:56 +0200, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 09:06:35PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 13:23 -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > > I'm not dead set on binary, since as above I could do it either way,
> > > but it seemed worth at least talking through. Let me know what you
> > > think.
> > 
> > The configfs documentation (Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt)
> > is clear about this: "Preferably only one value per file should be used." So
> > I would like to hear the opinion of someone who has more authority than I
> > with regard to configfs.
> 
> Don't we have "binary" files for configfs?  We have them for sysfs, they
> are for files that are not touched by the kernel and just "pass-through"
> to the hardware.  Would that work here as well?

If a new version of the UFS spec would be introduced and that new version of the
spec introduces a new layout for the binary descriptor, will it be possible for
user space software to figure out which version of the binary descriptor format
that has to be used?

Thanks,

Bart.