linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: ufshpb: Cache HPB Control mode on init

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: <DM6PR04MB6575FCFF50C07C2C37C612E1FCB79@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sun, 31 Jan 2021 07:17:14 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
        "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zang Leigang <zangleigang@...ilicon.com>,
        Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@....com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: ufshpb: Cache HPB Control mode on init

> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:08:00AM +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +static enum UFSHPB_MODE ufshpb_mode;
> > >
> > > How are you allowed to have a single variable for a device-specific
> > > thing?  What happens when you have two controllers or disks or whatever
> > > you are binding to here?  How does this work at all?
> > >
> > > This should be per-device, right?
> > Right. Done.
> >
> > Not being bickering,  AFAIK, there aren't, nor will be in the foreseen future,
> any multi-ufs-hosts designs.
> 
> Why not?  What prevents someone from putting 2 PCI ufs host controllers
> in a system tomorrow?
> 
> > There were some talks in the past about ufs cards, but this is officially off
> the table.
> 
> Never say never :)
> 
> Seriously, how can you somehow ensure that a random manufacturer will
> not do this?
Better let the platform vendors answer this.

As for your comment - you are obviously right - I will fix this.

Thanks,
Avri