linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ufs: core: print capabilities in controller's sysfs node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <30eea4f3-65b7-688a-ef55-69d589d62b00@acm.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 16:21:53 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: core: print capabilities in controller's sysfs node

On 7/28/22 16:08, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:37 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>> This code change includes all of the UFSHCD_CAP_* constants in the
>> kernel ABI. Is that really what we want? I'm wondering whether it
>> perhaps would be better only to export those capabilities to user space
>> that user space needs to know about.
> Adding the filtering would introduce an extra maintenance burden and
> will likely go out
> of sync. I don't see harm in exposing all capabilities, both intrinsic
> to the controller and
> negotiated with the device. Do you see any scenario where that would be harmful?

Please only export what you need instead of exporting all capabilities.

Thanks,

Bart.