linux-kernel - RE: [RFC 07/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Create kthreads for online cpus for scan test

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, 7 Mar 2022 17:46:44 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
CC:     "hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "markgross@...nel.org" <markgross@...nel.org>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" 
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 07/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Create kthreads for online
 cpus for scan test

>> These are software(driver) defined error codes. Rest of the error codes are supplied by
>> the hardware. Software defined error codes were kept at the other end to provide ample space
>> in case (future) hardware decides to provide extend error codes.
>
> Why put them in the same number space? Separate software results from
> the raw hardware results and have a separate mechanism to convey each.

We wanted to include in the "details" file, which is otherwise a direct copy of
the SCAN_STATUS MSR. Making sure the software error codes didn't overlap
with any h/w generated codes seemed like a good idea.

But maybe we should have done this with additional string values in the status
file:

Current:

pass
untested
fail

Add a couple of new options for the s/w cases:

sw_timeout
sw_retries_exceeded

-Tony