linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv1] fpga: mgr: add FPGA configuration log

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]

Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:08:00 -0700
From:   Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] fpga: mgr: add FPGA configuration log

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:37:51PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> >
> > it's state, not status for most fpga manager drivers.  It should
> > return 'operating' if everything went well.

Yeah, sorry :)

> > It seems like there's a possible scenario where the FPGA starts up
> > with the FPGA in 'operating' mode and the user messes up early enough
> > that the state doesn't change.

Huh, then we should fix that instead? :)
> >
> > >
> > > Personally not in favor of extra messages, but if we do it we should
> > > change the message to "Sucessfully programmed FPGA".
> > >
> > > I think making it a dbg message is a good trade-off ...
> 
> dbg vs info... On the one hand, it is a usually a message the
> developer wants to see so the developer would turn on debug messages.
> But then again FPGA programming doesn't happen that often and it is a
> kind of significant event since it is your hardware changing i.e. it
> won't add a lot messages, but it is sort of an important one if it
> happens.   If the system crashes after a FPGA reprogramming event, it
> would be good to have this in the log by default.  I don't want to
> argue too powerfully for adding extra messages though.  Is this a case
> where info is worth it since fpga programming is significant?

In the current setup, it doesn't happen often. Going forward people
might have use-cases where this happens a lot more often.

I mean if y'all feel like this is required, sure, I still feel people
shouldn't rely on dmesg output for functional verification :)

I don't wanna guarantee that this message is gonna be there always ...

Cheers,
Moritz