linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/10] Introduce In Field Scan 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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:10:39 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        markgross@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, corbet@....net, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        ashok.raj@...el.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Introduce In Field Scan driver

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:10:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:54:47AM -0800, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> > > Note to Maintainers:
> > > Requesting x86 Maintainers to take a look at patch01 as it
> > > touches arch/x86 portion of the kernel. Also would like to guide them
> > > to patch07 which sets up hotplug notifiers and creates kthreads.
> > > 
> > > Patch 2/10 - Adds Documentation. Requesting Documentation maintainer to review it.
> > > 
> > > Requesting Greg KH to review the sysfs changes added by patch08.
> > 
> > "RFC" means you are not comfortable submitting the changes yet, so you
> > don't need my review at this point in time.  Become confident in your
> > changes before asking for others to review the code please.
> 
> Hint, it needs work, sysfs_emit() for one thing, lack of reference
> counting on your cpu objects is another...

Greg,

Thanks for the comments. They triggered a bunch of internal
re-thinking of the interface.  One idea that has some traction
(Credit/Blame: Dan Williams) is to:

1) Don't put anything in /sys/devices/system/cpu/*
2) Driver creates some info/control files in its own
   corner of /sys/devices/.../ifs
3) No per-cpu files ... run a test with:
   # echo ${cpu} > /sys/devices/.../ifs/run_test
4) No test result files.
   When tests complete they report using uevents

Using uevent to report means that we can easily have
mutiple parts to the result (pass/fail/incomplete status, as well
as diagnostic details about the reason for the failure,
or why the test was not completed).

This seems a novel use of uevent ... is it OK, or is is abuse?

Thanks

-Tony