linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] Adding critical/fault limits to hwmon sysfs API

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: <20100623183437.5a04dedb@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:34:37 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Cc:	"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Adding critical/fault limits to hwmon sysfs API

Hi Guenter,

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:03:25 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:29:11AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I expected a counter-proposal of this kind. The problem I see is that
> > the new limit we are adding is unrelated to _min. However, the other
> > _min_* file we have (_min_alarm) expresses something which is relative
> > to _min. Same as _max_hyst and _crit_hyst, which are relative to _max
> > and _critn respectively. So I have the feeling that _min_crit sends the
> > wrong signal to the reader. Especially if we keep _crit for the high
> > bound, the asymmetry raises questions.
> > 
> > This is my rationale for suggesting _crit and _lcrit. Now, I won't
> > argue forever if others disagree, these is really only a naming
> > convention and everything will be fine as long as the drivers and
> > libsensors agree.
> 
> Makes sense. No strong opinion on my side, really. Using crit/lcrit is fine for me as well.
> Maybe we should wait if there is input from others and go with lcrit if there is none.

OK, fine with me.

> On a side note, libsensors does not support inX_fault today, even though 
> it is mentioned in the API, and there is no currX_fault. Likewise, libsensors supports 
> currX_alarm but it is not mentioned in hwmon/sysfs-interface.
> Unless there are objections, I'll clean that up when I add support for the _[l]crit objects.

Yes, please!

> Also, lib/sensors.conf.5 has a comment "Likewise, tempX_crit often comes with tempX_max_crit".
> Since tempX_max_crit does not exist, it might make sense to remove that comment.

Does the sentence make sense if you replace tempX_max_crit with
tempX_crit_hyst? Looks like a copy-paste-edit mistake (that would be
from me.)

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/