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  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]
Date:   Sat, 16 May 2020 15:50:55 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware_crashed()

On Sat, 2020-05-16 at 15:24 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:

> Instead of the kernel taint, IMHO you should provide an annotation in
> sysfs (or somewhere else) for the *struct device* that had its firmware
> crash. Or maybe, if it's too complex to walk the entire hierarchy
> checking for that, have a uevent, or add the ability for the kernel to
> print out elsewhere in debugfs the list of devices that crashed at some

I mean sysfs, oops.

In addition, look what we have in iwl_trans_pcie_removal_wk(). If we
detect that the device is really wedged enough that the only way we can
still try to recover is by completely unbinding the driver from it, then
we give userspace a uevent for that. I don't remember exactly how and
where that gets used (ChromeOS) though, but it'd be nice to have that
sort of thing as part of the infrastructure, in a sort of two-level

Level 1: firmware crashed, but we're recovering, at least mostly, and
it's more informational

Level 2: device is wedged, going to try to recover by some more forceful
means (perhaps some devices can be power-cycled? etc.) but (more) state
would be lost in these cases?

Still don't think a kernel taint is appropriate for either of these.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists