linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] psi: add support for multi level pressure stall trigger

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: <070fe87d-43a0-5e4f-e4c7-c44782c2c195@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 18:29:03 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <seakeel@...il.com>
To:     Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] psi: add support for multi level pressure stall
 trigger



On 5/17/22 20:46, Chen Wandun wrote:
>>>> This breaks the old ABI. And why you need this new function?
>>> Both great points.
>> BTW, I think the additional max_threshold parameter could be
>> implemented in a backward compatible way so that the old API is not
>> broken:
>>
>> arg_count = sscanf(buf, "some %u %u %u", &min_threshold_us,  &arg2, &arg3);
>> if (arg_count < 2) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> if (arg_count < 3) {
>>      max_threshold_us = INT_MAX;
>>      window_us = arg2;
>> } else {
>>      max_threshold_us = arg2;
>>      window_us = arg3;
>> }
> OK
> 
> Thanks.
>> But again, the motivation still needs to be explained.
> we want do different operation for different stall level,
> just as prev email explain, multi trigger is also OK in old
> ways, but it is a litter complex.

In fact, I am not keen for this solution, the older and newer
interface is easy to be confused by users, for some resolvable
unclear issues. It's not a good idea.

Thanks
Alex