| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:48:28 +0200 From: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] thermal: add sanity check for the passive attribute On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Values below 40000 milli-celsius (limit is somewhat arbitrary) > > don't make sense and can cause the system to go into a thermal > > heart attack: the actual temperature will always be lower and > > thus the system will be throttled down to its lowest setting. > > Not keen on this - it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff, and there are some > cases where someone might want this value. Policy belongs in userspace, > and all that. What cases do you see? Testing? Or systems that might have to operate at such a low temperature? I deliberately chose a value that's at a level that's easy to reach. I agree it is arbitrary, but it will prevent major confusion when someone like me echo's 95 directly in sysfs. Would 1000 (1 °C) perhaps be more acceptable as a limit? I doubt there are valid use-cases for below 0 temps :-) -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists