linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Convert mce

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <507BA4E5.7020608@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:23:41 +0530
From:	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Convert mce_disabled

On 10/12/2012 05:26 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:20:40PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Hi Boris, Thanks for getting to this before I could!
>
> Ah ok, I thought you wasn't interested in doing this anymore :).

Sorry - just got sidetracked a bit, I'm afraid :)

>
>> I had a look but I still feel boolean is a better way to go. With
>> bool, we can get rid of the #defines above and more importantly, the
>> aux field in dev_ext_attribute since that is used in other places
>> too. Further, I suspect we'll still end up using the same or less
>> memory since we don't have that many boolean members within the MCA
>> code.
>
> My main intention was to have all those in a single struct and use a
> single store_bit/show_bit function.
>
> Sure, you can do bools but this'll still be single variables spread
> around in mce.c instead of one single struct mca_config which nicely
> encapsulates all the configuration we do in the MCA code.
>
> Or, you can modify the mca_config I have there and use bools and pass a
> pointer to each actual bool member in each DEVICE_BIT_ATTR invocation
> (and rename it to DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR). Yeah, that could work, unless I'm
> missing something else, of course.

Yes, this is what I had in mind. Though your code for use of bitfield is 
nicely done, I felt use of boolean will fit better in this specific case.


Thanks,
Naveen

--
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/