From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (146.0.238.70:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 25 Feb 2019 16:00:48 -0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gyIgQ-0000vM-In for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:00:47 +0100 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:00:36 +0100 From: Greg KH Subject: [MODERATED] Re: Encrypted Message Message-ID: <20190225160036.GA18042@kroah.com> References: <8d04705a73208de4bb4a4062bf3d977b5ee5c5f4.1551019522.git.ak@linux.intel.com> <20190225151935.GA19947@kroah.com> <20190225153411.GO16922@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20190225154935.GA17057@kroah.com> <81d31cd3-5e8f-5cbd-7aa1-0e92394b2950@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <81d31cd3-5e8f-5cbd-7aa1-0e92394b2950@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:52:30AM -0500, speck for Jon Masters wrote: > From: Jon Masters > To: speck for Greg KH > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 31/43] MDSv6 > On 2/25/19 10:49 AM, speck for Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:34:11AM -0800, speck for Andi Kleen wrote: > > > >> However I will probably not be able to write a detailed > >> description for each of the interrupt handlers changed because > >> there are just too many. > > > > Then how do you expect each subsystem / driver author to know if this is > > an acceptable change or not? How do you expect to educate driver > > authors to have them determine if they need to do this on their new > > drivers or not? Are you going to hand-audit each new driver that gets > > added to the kernel for forever? > > > > Without this type of information, this seems like a futile exercise. > > Forgive me if I'm being too cautious here, but it seems to make most > sense to have the basic MDS infrastructure in place at unembargo. Unless > it's very clear how the auto stuff can be safe, and the audit > comprehensive, I wonder if that shouldn't just be done after. I thought that was what Thomas's patchset provided and is what was alluded to in patch 00/43 of this series. greg k-h