Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:41:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:41:37 -0400 Received: from petasus.ch.intel.com ([143.182.124.5]:62892 "EHLO petasus.ch.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:41:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Rhoads, Rob" To: "'Greg KH'" , "Rhoads, Rob" Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] Linux Hardened Device Drivers Project Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:46:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2899 Lines: 71 > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com] > [snip] > > > An underlying theme tends to revolve around the binding > > of the concepts of 'hardening' and RAS features being > > added to drivers. We will be looking into splitting > > these two different approaches out from this singular > > document and into their appropriate locations. > > Where would these locations be? > First throw away any idea of a spec. That was a bad idea. :) Next, turn the first section, "Stability & Reliability" of our original doc into a "Driver Hardening HOWTO". It would be a list of characteristics that all good drivers should have, packed with examples to back it up. BTW, by no means did I or anyone involved on this project, ever mean to imply that the current drivers in the kernel are "bad". Rather, I'd like to capture a list of the best practices and document them. In any event our current list needs to be strengthened with concrete examples. My thinking is that we should work with the Kernel Janitor project. This is where Intel can probably really help out. The section on Instrumentation should be broken up and each piece dealt with separately as separate project. Most likely killed outright or as part of existing efforts. I see this section as not having anything to do with driver hardening and more to do with driver RAS. POSIX Event Logging-- is a dead issue. The mailing list feedback is making that point very clear, many thanks. The current thread on an alternative, seems like there is some sort of need for event logging. Whatever the final decision that the Linux community decides, we'll do. There seems to be a desire to have some sort of driver diagnostics. We can work on that with the existing linux-diag project. Statistics needs to be debated on its own merits. There are some arguments for keeping it, but I think that stats could be better handled in user-space and NOT kernel space. IMHO it's not driver hardening, therefore it's a separate project. Third, the most of the section on High Availability should just be axed. The big exception being "fault injection testing". I see value in keeping FI testing. I think that getting FI tools into the hands of developers would be worthwhile. Why? Because letting people do more complicated testing, produces better code. I think there is room for us to work on a set of FI tools. > > If you are interested (even if you aren't) please go > > to http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardeneddrivers-discuss > and subscribe to the mailing list. > > Sorry, but major kernel driver discussions should occur on lkml. > > thanks, > > greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/