linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 16/19] x86/resctrl: Enable ABMC by default on resctrl mount

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:49:56 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: <babu.moger@....com>, <corbet@....net>, <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	<rdunlap@...radead.org>, <tj@...nel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<yanjiewtw@...il.com>, <kim.phillips@....com>, <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, <jmattson@...gle.com>, <leitao@...ian.org>,
	<jpoimboe@...nel.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
	<kai.huang@...el.com>, <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	<daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<sandipan.das@....com>, <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<peternewman@...gle.com>, <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<eranian@...gle.com>, <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/19] x86/resctrl: Enable ABMC by default on resctrl
 mount

Hi Babu,

On 6/20/24 7:46 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> On 6/13/24 20:50, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 5/24/24 5:23 AM, Babu Moger wrote:


>>> +        if (resctrl_assign_events(&rdtgroup_default) < 0)
>>> +            rdt_last_cmd_puts("Monitor assignment failed\n");
>>
>> How will user know that there is a warning? This does not return an error
>> so nothing will prompt user to check the status file. Perhaps add a comment
>> in the docs to help users at least know that this exists. Another helpful
> 
> Sure. Will add text about this in the documentation.
> 
>> thing will be to have the counter return "Unassigned" if it has not been
>> assigned
>> since users familiar with old interface may see "Unavailable" without
>> knowing that user action is required to get a working event.
> 
> Not so sure about interpreting hardware reported error.
> 

I only see "Unavailable" as a hardware error and that is already
supported. "Unassigned" is not a hardware error but instead indicates
to user space that no hardware counter is backing the queried event.

Reinette