linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] ipmi: Allow raw access to KCS devices

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, 24 May 2021 10:06:00 +0930
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@...id.au>
To:     "Corey Minyard" <minyard@....org>
Cc:     openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, "Tomer Maimon" <tmaimon77@...il.com>,
        linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        "Avi Fishman" <avifishman70@...il.com>,
        "Patrick Venture" <venture@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Tali Perry" <tali.perry1@...il.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Chia-Wei, Wang" <chiawei_wang@...eedtech.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "Benjamin Fair" <benjaminfair@...gle.com>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, "Zev Weiss" <zweiss@...inix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] ipmi: Allow raw access to KCS devices

Hi Corey,

On Sat, 22 May 2021, at 03:06, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:11:57PM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This is the 3rd spin of the series refactoring the keyboard-controller-style
> > device drivers in the IPMI subsystem.
> 
> This is a nice set of cleanups outside of just allowing raw access.
> I'll let you handle Zev's comments and a few of mine.

Thanks for taking the time to review the series. I'll address the 
comments from you both in v4.

> 
> I almost hate to ask this, but would there be value in allowing the BT
> driver to use this abstract interface? 

Hmm. Possibly, but it's not something I've looked at yet. If we did 
want to go down that path I don't think it would be too difficult, but 
I don't have a need to touch the BT side of it right now.

> Or maybe it would be just too
> hard to get a common abstraction, more work than it's worth.  It's
> surprising that more people don't want BT as it's vastly superior to
> KCS.  

For bulk data, certainly. However for the use-cases I have I'm using 
the KCS interface as a control channel that isn't data intensive. 
Interrupts, a small command set (256 values are more than enough) and a 
status byte are all I'm really after, so BT is more than I need.

Plus for the systems I'm working on we're still using BT for in-band 
IPMI while we transition to MCTP/PLDM. The current BT implementation is 
working fine for that :)

Cheers,

Andrew