linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/21] Add Qualcomm Minidump kernel driver related support

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: <355de4c7-180d-4edd-b6fd-9c8e29e40e42@quicinc.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 10:29:54 -0700
From:   Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        "Alexander Shishkin" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>, <corbet@....net>,
        <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <keescook@...omium.org>,
        <tony.luck@...el.com>, <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
        <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/21] Add Qualcomm Minidump kernel driver related
 support

On 7/4/2023 2:27 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 1:12 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>> My bigger issue with this whole series is what would this all look
>> like if every SoC vendor upstreamed their own custom dumping
>> mechanism. That would be a mess. (I have similar opinions on the
>> $soc-vendor hypervisors.)
> 
> I agree with Rob's stance.
> 
> I think it would be useful to get input from the hwtracing developers
> (Alexander and Mathieu) who faced this "necessarily different" issue
> with all the hwtrace mechanisms and found a way out of it. I suspect
> they can have an idea of how this should be abstracted.

Any mailing list you suggest we expand to so that we get inputs from the 
hwtracing developers and maintainers or just look into the MAINTAINERS 
file and start an email thread?

We are fine to submit the abstract for the LPC in next two weeks, but 
prefer to have lot of good discussion before it on the mailing list, so 
that we have code to talk about in LPC.

---Trilok Soni