linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Software Defined Silicon 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: <Yf0taBe4PwTNbu9g@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:43:04 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com,
        mgross@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Software Defined Silicon
 driver

On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 05:23:07AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-02-04 at 02:14 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 21:30 -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > > Intel Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) is a post manufacturing mechanism for
> > > activating additional silicon features. Features are enabled through a
> > > license activation process.
> > 
> > Why isn't this a user process and not a kernel one?
> 
> This is a mechanism for provisioning CPU features during runtime. It requires a
> driver to access the functionality. That functionality is discovered on a multi
> functional PCI device that is owned by the upstream intel_vsec driver.
> 
> > 
> > > V5
> > >   - Update kernel version to 5.18 in API doc and copyrights to 2022.
> > >   - Remove unneeded prototypes.
> > >   - In binary attribute handlers where ret is only used for errors,
> > >     replace,
> > >               return (ret < 0) ? ret : size;
> > >     with,
> > >               return ret ?: size;
> > 
> > I think this style overly tricky.
> > 
> > Why not the canonical:
> > 
> > 	if (ret < 0)
> > 		return ret;
> > 
> > 	return size;
> 
> I can see not using the 2 parameter shortcut of the ternary operator, but the
> regular 3 parameter expression is easy to read for simple operations.

Not always.  Spell it out please and be obvious.

thanks,

greg k-h