linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4, v3] Physical PCI slot objects

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]

Message-ID: <20071120195359.GB11694@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:53:59 -0800
From:	Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>, Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, gregkh@...e.de,
	kristen.c.accardi@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, rick.jones2@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com,
	pcihpd-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4, v3] Physical PCI slot objects

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:04:02AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 03:32:25PM -0800, Gary Hade wrote:
> 
> > Alex, What I was trying to suggest is a boot-time kernel option, 
> > not a kernel configuration option.  The basic idea is to give
> > the user (with a single binary kernel) the ability to include
> > your ACPI-PCI slot driver feature changes only when they are
> > really needed.  In addition to reducing the number of
> > system/PCI hotplug driver combinations where your changes
> > would need to be validated, I believe would also help 
> > alleviate other worries (e.g. Andi Kleen's memory consumption
> > concern).  I believe this goal could also be achieved with the
> > kernel config option by making the pci_slot module runtime
> > loadable with the PCI hotplug drivers only visiting your new
> > code when the pci_slot driver is loaded, although I think this
> > would be more difficult to implement.
> 
> If we're compiling something into the kernel, the default behaviour 
> should be for the functionality to be turned on unless the user 
> overrides it.

It seems like others could have a problem with this but as
long as there is a way to exclude the functionality in the
event of problems without a kernel rebuild, "on" by default
would work for me.

Thanks,
Gary

-- 
Gary Hade
System x Enablement
IBM Linux Technology Center
503-578-4503  IBM T/L: 775-4503
garyhade@...ibm.com
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc

-
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/