linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cxl/mbox: support background operation abort requests

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: <zrmn3j2wzzlnzzwunk64xfy4jussoiek5ro73qs3yrjqflemtz@zbn53a27tt6y>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:29:10 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Ravis OpenSrc <Ravis.OpenSrc@...ron.com>
Cc: "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, 
	"dave.jiang@...el.com" <dave.jiang@...el.com>, "jonathan.cameron@...wei.com" <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, 
	"alison.schofield@...el.com" <alison.schofield@...el.com>, "vishal.l.verma@...el.com" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, 
	"ira.weiny@...el.com" <ira.weiny@...el.com>, "fan.ni@...sung.com" <fan.ni@...sung.com>, 
	"a.manzanares@...sung.com" <a.manzanares@...sung.com>, Srinivasulu Opensrc <sthanneeru.opensrc@...ron.com>, 
	Eishan Mirakhur <emirakhur@...ron.com>, Ajay Joshi <ajayjoshi@...ron.com>, 
	Srinivasulu Thanneeru <sthanneeru@...ron.com>, "linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cxl/mbox: support background operation abort requests

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024, Ravis OpenSrc wrote:\n
>Hi Davidlohr,
>
>   We have recently submitted an RFC to implement Request Background Abort
>in case a timeout is encountered while executing a background command.
>The patch series disables those background commands which do not support abort
>based on their individual CEL properties.
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20241017163215.00000547@Huawei.com/T/#ma6710971908b85a5f8c5da2e23b8102b5a6e277c

*sigh* it would have been nice to be Cc'ed.

>
>This implementation is based on Dan's suggestion in a previous thread.
>https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/66035c2e8ba17_770232948b@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch/
>
>We can discuss more on how we can potentially merge and arrive at a common ground.

I think that my approach is way more robust then defining a timeout as in that series.
It also aligns more with Jonathan's comments about the abort being on demand.