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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:10:38 +0530 From: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com> To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>, Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: don't sleep in atomic context On 10/12/2017 04:09 PM, David Laight wrote: > From: Pankaj Dubey >> Sent: 12 October 2017 08:55 >> In pcie-designware.c many places we are calling "usleep_range" which >> are in atomic context. This patch fixes these potential BUGs and >> replaces "usleep_range" with mdelay calls. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com> >> --- >> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 8 ++++---- >> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 3 +-- >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> index 88abddd..35d19b9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, >> if (val & PCIE_ATU_ENABLE) >> return; >> >> - usleep_range(LINK_WAIT_IATU_MIN, LINK_WAIT_IATU_MAX); >> + mdelay(LINK_WAIT_IATU_MIN); >> } > Spinning for 9ms (possibly 10 times) isn't really a good idea. Yes. It may not be a good idea, however in our experiment it never hit maximum retry count. I just converted usleep_range to mdelay keeping min time limitation as it is, though I am not sure, how do we arrived on these numbers in original code, may be Joao Pinto from Synopsys have some idea, I will try to do few experiment and try to find out what is sufficient minimum time in our hardware for these mdelay. Thanks, Pankaj Dubey > David > > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists