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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ihavOHCzfqMc7nd7HUaxYta7-vBBTo6WoJ3gDduZ6iRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 21:03:53 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 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

Top-posting not welcome.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 8:52 PM Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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

No, it does more than this.  For instance, it is not necessary to do
anything about PLATFORM_PROFILE_BALANCED_PERFORMANCE in it.

The structure of it is questionable either.  It really should be two
patches, one modifying the ACPI platform-profile driver and the other
changing amd-pmf on top of this.

Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that the "secondary" driver
concept is needed to address the problem at hand.