linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 5/6] fpga: image-load: create status sysfs node

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210913082706.GB773070@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:27:06 +0800
From:   Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
To:     Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
Cc:     Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>, mdf@...nel.org,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lgoncalv@...hat.com, hao.wu@...el.com, matthew.gerlach@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 5/6] fpga: image-load: create status sysfs node

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 10:58:16AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> 
> On 9/10/21 4:30 PM, Russ Weight wrote:
> > 
> > On 9/10/21 1:52 AM, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 07:18:45PM -0700, Russ Weight wrote:
> > > > Extend the FPGA Image Load class driver to include a status sysfs node that
> > > > can be viewed to determine from the command line if an image load is in
> > > > progress. Status will be one of: idle, starting, preparing, writing, or
> > > > programming.
> > > The FPGA_IMAGE_LOAD_STATUS ioctl already provides the progress info.
> > > Why we need 2 user interfaces for the same information?
> > Updates on Vista Creek can take up to 40 minutes. I thought it might
> > be helpful to have a simple way, from the command line, to verify
> > whether or not there is an image upload in progress. Do you agree? Or
> > do you think this is unnecessary? Should I remove it? Or save it for
> > a later patch (after the main patches have been accepted)?
> 
> I agree, there should not be two methods to doing the same thing.
> 
> I prefer the ioctl since it handles other cmd's as well.
> 
> The user has to use the ioctl to start the write so it would for more
> natural to use the ioctl over sysfs to the check the status
> 
> Remove it.
> 
> Make a strong case for it's need when/if you want to add it back later.

Yes, remove it. Not a strong use case for this interface now.

Thanks,
Yilun