linux-kernel - Re: re-enable Nehalem raw Offcore-Events support

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: <BANLkTim3bojtfeeWsAFx2Gct7LsvGCdn-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:37:23 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>
Subject: Re: re-enable Nehalem raw Offcore-Events support

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >  2.  Users are too stupid to use the raw functionality properly;
>> >      we should only allow a kernel-developer-approved small subset
>> >      of the features provided by the CPU as described in the intel
>> >      developers manuals.
>> >
>> > #2 seems like a gross misinterpretation of the whole "Linux gives you
>> > enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot" policy from days passed, but
>> > maybe things have moved on.
>>
>> That's a gross misrepresentation of what Ingo has been saying on LKML.
>> Really, learn to work with relevant maintainers before you ask Linus
>> to revert something.
>
> Ingo may not have explicitely said (2), but at least his revert (disabling
> the raw interface users are asking for) is practically implementing (2).
>
> Actions speak louder than words.
>
> That is either you have a raw interface or you only have the cooked
> interface or you have both. Since he reverted raw only cooked
> is left, which is (2)
>
> I agree with Vince it's a bad policy.

So a maintainer reverts an ABI that he thinks needs more thought/work
before it's too late and we're stuck with it forever. Can you please
explain what's the problem here?

Asking Linus to revert the commit is short-sighted and doesn't solve
the problem. Learn to work with the maintainer and save yourself a lot
of trouble.
--
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/