linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Implement Array BIST test

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: <e70030cb-e0b5-41ba-4913-361a2038e58a@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:40:26 -0700
From:   "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, <markgross@...nel.org>
CC:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
        <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <ashok.raj@...el.com>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>, <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
        <athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@...el.com>, <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Implement Array BIST test



On 3/16/2023 2:59 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:

>>
>> Only one IFS test is allowed at a time. This is done using "ifs_sem" defined in sysfs.c
> 
> Ah I see.
> 
> After taking a closer look I do see one unrelated issue with this patch
> sysfs.c: run_test_store() does:
> 
>         if (!ifsd->loaded)
>                 rc = -EPERM;
>         else
>                 rc = do_core_test(cpu, dev);
> 
> But AFAICT the loaded check really only applies to the first (intel_ifs_0 device) test type and the 
> Array BIST test should work fine when loaded is false.

This is true, the load check only applies to first test. And the patch (5/8) in this series adds the
check you are suggesting to allow the second test to proceed (as given below)

	if (ifsd->ro_info->test_num != IFS_TYPE_ARRAY_BIST && !ifsd->loaded)
		rc = -EPERM;
	else
		rc = do_core_test(cpu, dev);

It is possible that the snippet you pasted above was from an earlier state.


Jithu