linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 3/4] pmdomain: core: Fix debugfs node creation failure

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: <lyn5ufwtpezk7li333b46rak7yiyvskirfe55vqo3un6wenb5l@kmgjtjl3dzqq>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:47:04 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, sudeep.holla@....com, 
	cristian.marussi@....com, jassisinghbrar@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, johan@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, tstrudel@...gle.com, rafael@...nel.org, 
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/4] pmdomain: core: Fix debugfs node creation failure

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 01:11:14PM GMT, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 19:33, Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:41AM GMT, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > > The domain attributes returned by the perf protocol can end up
> > > reporting identical names across domains, resulting in debugfs
> > > node creation failure. Fix this failure by ensuring that pm domains
> > > get a unique name using ida in pm_genpd_init.
> 
> Thanks for working on this!
> 
> >
> > Can we make this opt-in or opt-out? Seeing numeric suffixes next to
> > well-known power domain names (e.g. those comin from RPMh or the CPU
> > domains) is a bit strange. Or maybe you can limit the IDA suffix just to
> > the SCMI / perf domains?
> 
> I was also thinking something along the lines of this.
> 
> Another thing on top of what Dmitry suggests, could be to iterate
> through the &gpd_list and compare the existing genpd->names with the
> one that we are adding in pm_genpd_init(). In this way, we don't need
> to add the IDA to more than those that really need it.
> 
> What do you think?

I have no strong preference. Your proposal sounds good to me too.

> 
> [...]
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry