linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception handling

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: <DM6PR04MB6575469BB1401DA5D43CA790FCCE9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 06:46:20 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:     "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception
 handling

> On 9/1/2021 9:39 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> >> It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need
> >> to be taken. So add a designated vop for that.  Each chipset vendor can
> >> decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some
> >> Privet implementation.
> >
> > Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme
> > temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of
> > making each vendor come up with a different implementation.
The storage device is merely acting as a temperature sensor.
This info, jointly with other temperature sensors of the system,
Should be used elsewhere in a much broader scope - probably by Android.
Either way, ufshcd is hardly the place for those decisions.

> >
> I think it should be either i.e. if a vendor specific implementation is
> defined use that else use the generic implementation in ufshcd.
> There may be a bunch of things that each vendor may need/want do
> depending upon use-case, I imagine.
I agree, and this is why I wanted to allow that that flexibility.
But I get Bart's point. I will register the sensor in some subsystem.
It should allow the required degrees of freedom.

Thanks,
Avri
> 
> >> +    void    (*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status);
> >
> > Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of
> > that vop.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bart.
> 
> 
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project