linux-kernel - Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection

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:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:26:37 -0400
From:	Austin Zhang <austin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	multinymous@...il.com, Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection

On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:59 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:

> 2. If we're gonna unify interface, how much can we unify the backend?
>    Some devices are based on polling, others interrupt.  For polling,
>    is it better to delegate the whole polling to userland or is it
>    better to do some of it in kernel (tp_smapi seems to be doing
>    this)?
Shock protection should be time-sensitive, if we put the whole polling 
into userland, will it be possible that the damage had happened before 
userland app can signal ATA idle command timely?

> 3. What about the userland daemon?  It would be best to have a unified
>    daemon which can handle all instead of one for hdaps and another
>    for hp (and so on).  If we can unify the interface, this will be
>    much easier.
> 
> Thanks.

Can this process "acceleration-detect --> inform ATA shock protect --> 
issue idle command" be done totally in kernel, avoiding to consume too 
many time for "acceleration-detect --> sysfs --> userland app --> sysfs 
--> inform ATA shock protect --> issue idle command" before HD was damaged? 
The userland daemon should be just a indicator (but of course it can pass 
params to driver) for the protection status rather than a judge.



--
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/