linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/pseries: read the lpar name from the firmware

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: <38aaa1e8-1941-8b84-6cc6-b773f31112f8@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:24:36 +0100
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/pseries: read the lpar name from the firmware

On 07/12/2021, 18:18:40, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 07/12/2021, 18:07:50, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> On 07/12/2021, 15:32:39, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>>>> Is there a reasonable fallback for VMs where this parameter doesn't
>>>> exist? PowerVM partitions should always have it, but what do we want the
>>>> behavior to be on other hypervisors?
>>>
>>> In that case, there is no value displayed in the /proc/powerpc/lparcfg and
>>> the lparstat -i command will fall back to the device tree value. I can't
>>> see any valid reason to report the value defined in the device tree
>>> here.
>>
>> Here's a valid reason :-)
>>
>> lparstat isn't the only possible consumer of the interface, and the
>> 'ibm,partition-name' property and the dynamic system parameter clearly
>> serve a common purpose. 'ibm,partition-name' is provided by qemu.
> 
> If the hypervisor is not providing this value, this is not the goal of this
> interface to fetch it from the device tree.
> 
> Any consumer should be able to fall back on the device tree value, and
> there is no added value to do such a trick in the kernel when it can be
> done in the user space.
> 
>> In any case, the function should not print an error when the return
>> value is -3 (parameter not supported).
> 
> That's a valid requirement.

I sent a v4 which is printing an error message even if the parameter is not
supported by the hypervisor.

This is unlikely and since this a call to pr_err_once(), it would be
printed only once, so not really annoying. I don't think a v5 is required
for such a minor message.