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:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 14:59:03 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
        "hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "markgross@...nel.org" <markgross@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" 
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC 00/10] Introduce In Field Scan driver

>> This seems a novel use of uevent ... is it OK, or is is abuse?
>
> Don't create "novel" uses of uevents.  They are there to express a
> change in state of a device so that userspace can then go and do
> something with that information.  If that pattern fits here, wonderful.

Maybe Dan will chime in here to better explain his idea. I think for
the case where the core test fails, there is a good match with uevent.
The device (one CPU core) has changed state from "working" to
"untrustworthy". Userspace can do things like: take the logical CPUs
on that core offline, initiate a service call, or in a VMM cluster environment
migrate work to a different node.

> I doubt you can report "test results" via a uevent in a way that the
> current uevent states and messages would properly convey, but hey, maybe
> I'm wrong.

But here things get a bit sketchy. Reporting "pass", or "didn't complete the test"
isn't a state change.  But it seems like a poor interface if there is no feedback
that the test was run. Using different methods to report pass/fail/incomplete
also seems user hostile.

> good luck!
Thanks ... we may need it :-)

-Tony