linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] vfio error recovery: kernel 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170406005028-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:56:14 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        qemu-devel@...gnu.org, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] vfio error recovery: kernel support

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 04:54:33PM +0800, Cao jin wrote:
> Apparently, I don't have experience to induce non-fatal error, device
> error is more of a chance related with the environment(temperature,
> humidity, etc) as I understand.

I'm not sure how to interpret this statement. I think what Alex is
saying is simply that patches should include some justification. They
make changes but what are they improving?
For example:

	I tested device ABC in conditions DEF. Without a patch VM
	stops. With the patches applied VM recovers and proceeds to
	use the device normally.

is one reasonable justification imho.

-- 
MST