linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V1 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Fix feature detection

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:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 22:51:14 +0000
From:   "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
To:     "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "babu.moger@....com" <babu.moger@....com>,
        "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V1 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Fix feature detection

Hi Reinette,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 3:34 PM

[SNIP]

> > That's a good point and makes sense to me. I think we could fix it in
> > two ways 1. grep for strings in dmesg but that will still leave
> > ambiguity in deciding b/w mbm and cqm because kernel prints "resctrl: L3
> monitoring detected" for both the features 2. Check in "info" directory
> > 	a. For cat_l3, we could search for info/L3
> > 	b. For mba, we could search for info/MB
> > 	c. For cqm and mbm, we could search for specified string in
> > info/L3_MON/mon_features
> >
> > I think option 2 might be better because it can handle all cases, please let me
> know what you think.
> 
> I agree. For the reasons you mention and also that (1) may not be possible if the
> loglevel prevents those lines from being printed.

Makes sense. I will work on the fix.

Regards,
Sai