linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] Cqm2: Intel Cache quality monitoring fixes

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.DEB.2.20.1701231013360.3836@nanos>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:47:44 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>
cc:     Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, andi.kleen@...el.com,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Cqm2: Intel Cache quality monitoring fixes

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > Can you please write up in a abstract way what the design requirements are
> > that you need. So far we are talking about implementation details and
> > unspecfied wishlists, but what we really need is an abstract requirement.
> 
> My pleasure:
> 
> 
> Design Proposal for Monitoring of RDT Allocation Groups.

I was asking for requirements, not a design proposal. In order to make a
design you need a requirements specification.

So again: 

  Can please everyone involved write up their specific requirements
  for CQM and stop spamming us with half baken design proposals?

  And I mean abstract requirements and not again something which is
  referring to existing crap or some desired crap.

The complete list of requirements has to be agreed on before we talk about
anything else.

Thanks,

	tglx