linux-kernel - [PATCH] mtd: nand: check status before reporting timeout

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri,  4 Mar 2016 17:19:23 -0800
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@...tec.com>,
	Alex Smith <alex.smith@...tec.com>,
	Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com>,
	Alex Smith <alex@...x-smith.me.uk>
Subject: [PATCH] mtd: nand: check status before reporting timeout

In commit b70af9bef49b ("mtd: nand: increase ready wait timeout and
report timeouts"), we increased the likelihood of scheduling during
nand_wait(). This makes us more likely to hit the time_before(...)
condition, since a lot of time may pass before we get scheduled again.

Now, the loop was already buggy, since we don't check if the NAND is
ready after exiting the loop; we simply print out a timeout warning. Fix
this by doing a final status check before printing a timeout message.

This isn't actually a critical bug, since the only effect is a false
warning print. But too many prints never hurt anyone, did they? :)

Side note: perhaps I'm not smart enough, but I'm not sure what the best
policy is for this kind of loop; do we busy loop (i.e., no
cond_resched()) to keep the lowest I/O latency (it's not great if the
resched is delaying Richard's system ~400ms)? Or do we allow
rescheduling, to play nice with the rest of the system (since some
operations can take quite a while)?

Reported-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Reviewed-by: Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@...tec.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
index f2c8ff398d6c..596a9b0503da 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
@@ -566,8 +566,8 @@ void nand_wait_ready(struct mtd_info *mtd)
 		cond_resched();
 	} while (time_before(jiffies, timeo));

-	pr_warn_ratelimited(
-		"timeout while waiting for chip to become ready\n");
+	if (!chip->dev_ready(mtd))
+		pr_warn_ratelimited("timeout while waiting for chip to become ready\n");
 out:
 	led_trigger_event(nand_led_trigger, LED_OFF);
 }
-- 
2.7.0.rc3.207.g0ac5344