linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/5] scsi: ufs: ufs device as a temperature sensor

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: <MN2PR04MB699190E3474F82BEF9B91A58FC1D0@MN2PR04MB6991.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:40:56 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
CC:     Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@....com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] scsi: ufs: ufs device as a temperature sensor

> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:08 PM Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Avi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:48 PM Avi Shchislowski
> > > <Avi.Shchislowski@....com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As it become evident that the hwmon is not a viable option to
> implement
> > > ufs thermal notification, I would appreciate some concrete comments of
> this
> > > series.
> > >
> > > That isn't my reading of this thread.
> > >
> > > You have two options:
> > > 1. extend drivetemp if that makes sense for this particular application.
> > > 2. follow the model of other devices that happen to have a built-in
> > > temperature sensor and expose the hwmon compatible attributes as a
> > > subdevice
> > >
> > > It appears that option 1 isn't viable, so what about option 2?
> > This will require to export the ufs device management commands,
> > Which is privet to the ufs driver.
> >
> > This is not a viable option as well, because it will allow unrestricted access
> > (Including format etc.) to the storage device.
> >
> > Sorry for not making it clearer before.
> 
> I should have clarified further: I meant having the UFS device
> register a HWMON driver using this API:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/hwmon/hwmon-kernel-api.html
> 
> *Not* writing a separate HWMON driver that uses some private interface.
Ok.
Just one last question:
The ufs spec requires to be able to react upon an exception event from the device.
The thermal core provides an api in the form of thermal_notify_framework().
What would be the hwmon equivalent for that?

Thanks,
Avri