linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 12/16] libnvdimm, nfit: enable support for volatile ranges

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: <595580A6.9000004@hpe.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:35:18 -0400
From:   Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/16] libnvdimm, nfit: enable support for volatile
 ranges

On 06/29/2017 06:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com> wrote:
> [..]
>>> The /dev/pmem
>>> device name just tells you that your block device is hosted by a
>>> driver that knows how to handle persistent memory constraints, but any
>>> other details about the nature of the address range need to come from
>>> other sources of information, and potentially information sources that
>>> the kernel does not know about.
>>
>>
>> I'm asking about the other source of information in this specific case
>> where we're exposing pmem devices that will never ever be persistent.
>> Before we add these devices, I think we should be able to tell the user
>> how they can know the properties of the underlying device.
> 
> The only way I can think to indicate this is with a platform + device
> whitelist in a tool like ndctl. Where the tool says "yes, these
> xyz-vendor DIMMs on this abc-vendor platform with this 123-version
> BIOS" is a known good persistent configuration.

Doesn't the kernel know that something will never ever be persistent
because the NFIT type says NFIT_SPA_VDISK, NFIT_SPA_VCD, or NFIT_SPA_VOLATILE?
That's the case I'm asking about here.   In this patch, you're adding support
for creating /dev/pmem devices for those address ranges.  My question is
how the admin/user knows that those devices will never ever be persistent.

I don't think we need ndctl to know which vendors' hardware/firmware
actually works as advertised.

-- ljk