netdev - 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <08b09d21-0c59-4c0d-8b21-3883e76964d2@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:52:06 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, horms@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 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

Hi Rafael,

On 1/5/26 18:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?

I'm sorry for delay.
I don't see concerns. It LGTM so far, I can see that there will be v2
with minor change.

Regards,
Lukasz