linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 08/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add IFS sysfs interface

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: <eab8177d-eb73-ec64-ec1f-4f2a51be8aee@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 12:56:08 -0800
From:   "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...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>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...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 08/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add IFS sysfs interface



On 3/7/2022 12:25 PM, Dan Williams wrote:

> 
> I am speaking of the state of the case where 2 threads are doing
> run_test and polling for results. Unless you can guarantee that run2
> does not start before the results of run1 have been collected then
> they are lost in that scenario. No amount of kernel locking can
> resolve that race to collect previous result which would not be a
> problem in the first place if there was an atomic way to log test
> results.


Yes "status" shows the status of the latest run. You cannot get the status of the previous run.

Also some context on test frequency: Hardware has  strict rate limiting of tests.
Every core can be tested only once in every 30 minutes. So it is pointless to test at high frequency.