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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1104291938240.3005@ionos>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:42:53 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	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, 29 Apr 2011, Andi Kleen 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.

No, it's not the raw interface will be made available when the proper
set of abstracted functionality has been added and settled down,
simply because it might to change the way the raw event is exposed. As
long there are open questions which might have an influence on the
exposure of the raw event, it's completely correct to keep it
disabled.

Though you and Vince ignored Peters patches and the questions he
raised and just kept harping on your own interests.

That's a bad attitude, but we've been there before.

Thanks,

	tglx