linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 6.19 0/4] Revise the EM YNL spec to be clearer

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: <CAJZ5v0imU_DkW5-Pip3ze-MaHj+CAvc0LNkaLsTZuFbj33R0aA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 19:22:22 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>, kernel-dev@...lia.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	horms@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, rafael@...nel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, 
	sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, 
	pavel@...nel.org, donald.hunter@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 6.19 0/4] Revise the EM YNL spec to be clearer

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 10:44 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Changwoo,
>
> On 12/25/25 04:01, Changwoo Min wrote:
> > This patch set addresses all the concerns raised at [1] to make the EM YNL spec
> > clearer. It includes the following changes:
> >
> > - Fix the lint errors (1/4).
> > - Rename em.yaml to dev-energymodel.yaml (2/4).  “dev-energymodel” was used
> >    instead of “device-energy-model”, which was originally proposed [2], because
> >    the netlink protocol name cannot exceed GENL_NAMSIZ(16). In addition, docs
> >    strings and flags attributes were added.
> > - Change cpus' type from string to u64 array of CPU ids (3/4).
> > - Add dump to get-perf-domains in the EM YNL spec (4/4). A user can fetch
> >    either information about a specific performance domain with do or information
> >    about all performance domains with dump.
> >
> > This can be tested using the tool, tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py, for example,
> > with the following commands:
> >
> >    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
> >       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
> >       --dump get-perf-domains
> >    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
> >       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
> >       --do get-perf-domains --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}'
> >    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
> >       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
> >       --do get-perf-table --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}'
> >    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
> >       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
> >       --subscribe event  --sleep 10
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD4GDZy-aeWsiY=-ATr+Y4PzhMX71DFd_mmdMk4rxn3YG8U5GA@mail.gmail.com/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJZ5v0gpYQwC=1piaX-PNoyeoYJ7uw=DtAGdTVEXAsi4bnSdbA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> My apologies, I've missed those conversations (not the best season).
>
> So what would be the procedure here for the review?
> Could Folks from netlink help here?
>
> I will do my bit for the EM related stuff (to double-check them).

I think that it'll be good to have this in 6.19 to avoid making a
major release with an outdated EM YNL spec and I see that the review
on the net side is complete, so are there any concerns about this?