linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: Add SCSI error events, sent as kobject uevents by mid-layer

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: <727641384722bbdbbf96176210a7899f1b9795eb.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 16:11:07 -0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Salomon Dushimirimana <salomondush@...gle.com>
Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, 
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Add SCSI error events, sent as kobject uevents by
 mid-layer

On Thu, 2025-05-15 at 13:03 -0700, Salomon Dushimirimana wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with the recommended use of ftrace or blktrace for tracing.

Great; what made me think of tracing is that your event emits for every
error or retry which seemed like quite an overhead.  Conditioning it on
a config parameter really isn't useful to distributions, so using the
tracepoint system would solve both the quantity and the activation
problem.

> However, our primary goal for using uevents was not merely for
> collecting trace information. We are using uevents as a notification
> mechanism for userspace workflows to determine repair workflows (swap
> / remove a failing device).

If you're collecting stats for predictive failure, how is this proposed
active mechanism more effective than the passive one of simply using
the existing SMART monitor tools?

Regards,

James