linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: platform_profile: fix legacy sysfs with multiple handlers

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: 
 <CAGwozwHAKbR4y9cW8H0nmESS7yv6RrXtgcZyEdz1Wy2e8tAdqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:24:18 +0100
From: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>, Luke Jones <luke@...nes.dev>,
	Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>,
	"Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	me@...egospodneti.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: platform_profile: fix legacy sysfs with
 multiple handlers

This is what this patch series essentially does. It makes amd-pmf
accept all choices but only show its own in its own handler and when
it is the only option

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 21:22, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:07 AM Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, making asus-wmi use low-power is indeed the easiest solution, but
> > if I thought it was good enough, I would have done that already as a
> > downstream consumer of the kernel.
> >
> > I just want to be done with this once and for all, so I spent an extra
> > hour today solving this in a cleaner way.
>
> What about adding "quiet" as a "hidden choice" to amd-pmf such that it
> would allow the test_bit(*bit, handler->choices) check in
> _store_class_profile() to pass, but it would not cause this "choice"
> to become visible in the new I/F (or when amd-pmf becomes the only
> platform-profile driver) and it would be aliased to "low-power"
> internally?