linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] scsi: ufs: critical health condition

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID:
 <DM6PR04MB6575471948A3F86CA56DF31BFCF62@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 18:25:10 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, "Martin K . Petersen"
	<martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] scsi: ufs: critical health condition

> On 2/6/25 9:47 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> >> On 2/6/25 12:54 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> >>> After some further internal discussions: The set conditions are
> >>> vendor specific; The device may set it as many times it wants
> >>> depending on its criticality. The spec does not define that nor what
> >>> the host should do. So there is this concern that some vendors will
> >>> report multiple times, while other wont. Hence, reading
> >>> critical_health = 1 might be misleading. What do you think?
>  >
> > Still not sure if you want this to be a counter?
> 
> Since the event can be reported multiple times, a counter sounds better to me
> than a boolean.
Done.

> >> How about emitting a uevent if a critical health condition has been
> >> reported by a UFS device? See also sdev_evt_send().
> > Thanks for pointing this out.
> > A ufs event in enum scsi_device_event seems misplaced - looks like it was
> invented for unit attention codes.
> > How about calling kobject_uevent() or  kobject_uevent_env() directly from the
> driver?
> 
> Please note that emitting a uevent is not the only possible approach for informing
> user space code. Emitting a uevent is recommended if the code that processes an
> event can be implemented as a shell script. Could it be more likely that critical
> health events will be processed by C or C++ code rather than a shell script? If so,
> how about making the sysfs attribute that reports the number of critical health
> events pollable? In C and C++ code, polling a sysfs attribute requires less code
> than listening for uevents.
Done.

Thanks,
Avri

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.