linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] misc/pvpanic: add PCI driver

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: <91231b60-d559-5d1e-aff8-303fefc1f25e@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:02:14 +0200
From:   Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] misc/pvpanic: add PCI driver

La 16.03.2021 19:29, Greg KH a scris:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 07:08:38PM +0200, Mihai Carabas wrote:
>> ..snip..
>>>> +};
>>>> +static unsigned int capability = PVPANIC_PANICKED | PVPANIC_CRASH_LOADED;
>>>> +static unsigned int events;
>>>> +
>>>> +static ssize_t capability_show(struct device *dev,
>>>> +			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%x\n", capability);
>>> A global capability for all devices?  No, this needs to be a per-device
>>> attttribute as you are showing it to userspace as such.
>> We can only have a pvpanic-pci device. This is necessary in that case?
> Why would it not be?  Why constrain yourself to something that someone
> will only have to fix sometime in the future?

Agree. But why this got in in Jan2021 for pvpanic-mmio.c (ex. pvpanic.c) 
like this :)?