linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0

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: <2152986.NBIGJLcTzZ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:46:43 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 04:18:32 PM Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > The STAO definition document:
> >
> > http://wiki.xenproject.org/mediawiki/images/0/02/Status-override-table.pdf
> >
> > requires as to "operate as if that device does not exist", quite literally.
> 
> Well, first off, documentation is one thing, actually changing
> behavior is something entirely different.
> 
> Theory and practice are *not* the same.

Well, the STAO thing is totally new, so we have the documentation only ATM.

> The other worry I have is that I'd be happier if it's still visible in
> /sys/bus/acpi/ etc. Again, it's one thing to not react to it
> programmatically, and another thing entirely to actually hide the
> information from the rest of the system.
> 
> If I read that patch right, it will be hidden from sysfs too. But
> Maybe I'm mistaken.

You're right.

Avoiding to enumerate it entirely is somewhat simpler, because it allows
us to avoid some special casing in a few places IIRC.

I guess we can ask the author of the commit in question to come up with a
patch to unhide that device and we'll see how that looks like.

Thanks,
Rafael