linux-kernel - Re: GHES platform devices

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: <87twb6uc9l.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:27:02 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GHES platform devices

Hi, Bjorn,

Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> writes:

> Hi Huang,
>
> 7ad6e9435596 ("ACPI, APEI, Manage GHES as platform devices") added
> platform devices so the GHES driver could be built as a module and
> automatically loaded when needed.
>
> Later, 86cd47334b00 ("ACPI, APEI, GHES, Prevent GHES to be built as
> module") removed the ability to build GHES as a module.
>
> Should we revert 7ad6e9435596?  It's inconsistent to handle GHES, but
> not other error sources, as a platform device.  And having it as a
> platform device probably puts gunk in sysfs that we don't need.

Although other error sources are not platform devices, I think it is
generally good to make GHES platform devices.  To take advantage of
automatic module loading, we can make ghes a module again, but prevent
it from unloading.  What do you think about that?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying