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]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:10:55 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: shravankr@...dia.com, davthompson@...dia.com, ndalvi@...hat.com,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

On 2024-02-26 11:04, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-02-26 08:27, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:57:28 -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>
>>>> The mlxbf-pmc driver fails to load when the firmware reports a new but not
>>>> yet implemented performance block. I can reproduce this today with a
>>>> Bluefield-3 card and UEFI version 4.6.0-18-g7d063bb-BId13035, since this
>>>> reports the new clock_measure performance block.
>>>>
>>>> This[1] patch from Shravan implements the clock_measure support and will
>>>> solve the issue. But this series avoids the situation by ignoring and
>>>> logging unsupported performance blocks.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your contribution, it has been applied to my local
>>> review-ilpo branch. Note it will show up in the public
>>> platform-drivers-x86/review-ilpo branch only once I've pushed my
>>> local branch there, which might take a while.
>>
>> Thank you Ilpo and thanks Hans for the review.
>>
>> The only detail is that we probably want this merged for 6.8 since
>> the driver doesn't currently load with the configuration mentioned above.
> 
> Oh, sorry, I missed the mention in the coverletter.
> 
> So you'd want I drop these from review-ilpo branch as there they end
> up into for-next branch, and they should go through Hans instead who
> handles fixes branch for this cycle?

If that's the path to get this series merged for this cycle then yes,
but let's see if Hans agrees (sorry that I didn't know this before
posting).

One additional detail is that this series is on top of linux-next, which
has two additional mlxbf-pmc changes:

* 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/39be055af3506ce6f843d11e45d71620f2a96e26.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
* 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/

Maybe those two should be included for 6.8 as well?

- Luiz


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ