netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware

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: <7306323c35e6f44d7c569e689b48f380f80da5e5.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Sat, 16 May 2020 15:50:55 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, jeyu@...nel.org
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, aquini@...hat.com, cai@....pw, dyoung@...hat.com,
        bhe@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        gpiccoli@...onical.com, pmladek@...e.com, tiwai@...e.de,
        schlad@...e.de, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, will@...nel.org,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org
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
notification?

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.

johannes