linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/thermel/intel/workload

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: <d1c898fbb9b5095bc038d2393d350722627f3627.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 12:55:55 -0700
From: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, lukasz.luba@....com,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/thermel/intel/workload_hint: Mask unsupported
 types

On Thu, 2025-08-28 at 21:34 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:23 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > The workload hint may contain some other hints which are not
> > defined.
> > So mask out unsupported types. Currently only lower 4 bits of
> > workload
> > type hints are defined.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada
> > <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  .../selftests/thermal/intel/workload_hint/workload_hint_test.c | 3
> > +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git
> > a/tools/testing/selftests/thermal/intel/workload_hint/workload_hint
> > _test.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/thermal/intel/workload_hint/workload_hint
> > _test.c
> > index ba58589a1145..3ee018bca899 100644
> > ---
> > a/tools/testing/selftests/thermal/intel/workload_hint/workload_hint
> > _test.c
> > +++
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/thermal/intel/workload_hint/workload_hint
> > _test.c
> > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >                 } else if (ret == 0) {
> >                         printf("Poll Timeout\n");
> >                 } else {
> > +
> 
> Is this change intentional?  Looks like it is not needed.
Not intentional. Will send update.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> 
> >                         if ((lseek(fd, 0L, SEEK_SET)) < 0) {
> >                                 fprintf(stderr, "Failed to set
> > pointer to beginning\n");
> >                                 exit(1);
> > @@ -144,6 +145,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >                         ret = sscanf(index_str, "%d", &index);
> >                         if (ret < 0)
> >                                 break;
> > +
> > +                       index &= 0x0f;
> >                         if (index > WORKLOAD_TYPE_MAX_INDEX)
> >                                 printf("Invalid workload type
> > index\n");
> >                         else
> > --
> > 2.50.1
> > 
>