linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add current

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: <B12A4934-AD7A-4F8E-A2FB-229542C1A098@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Nov 2022 23:32:47 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...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>,
        "Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
        "Jimenez Gonzalez, Athenas" <athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@...el.com>,
        "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add current_batch sysfs
 entry


> Btw, do you guys really want to run this in production?

Absolutely yes.

> As in, are you really that confident that all those test sequence
> executions really do not affect other CPU execution at all?

Tests may draw a lot of power, so prevent
other cores going into turbo frequency states. 
But otherwise no effect.

> Because if this is going to be run during downtime, as Thiago says, then
> you can just as well use debugfs for this. And then there's no need to
> cast any API in stone and so on.

Did Thiago say “during downtime”? I think
he talked about some users opportunistic 
use of scan tests. But that’s far from only
during downtime. We fully expect CSPs to
run these scans periodically on production 
machines.

-Tony