linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-usb-users] OHCI root_port

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

Date:	Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	stern@...land.harvard.edu
Cc:	david-b@...bell.net, linux-usb-users@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [Linux-usb-users] OHCI root_port_reset() deadly loop...

From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:51:57 -0400 (EDT)

> > +			break;
> > +	}
> > +	if (limit_1 < 0) {
> > +		ohci_warn(ohci, "Root port outer-loop reset timeout, "
> > +			  "now[%04x] reset_done[%04x]\n",
> > +			  now, reset_done);
> > +	}
> 
> What reason is there for having two warning messages?  One ought to be 
> enough.

In my patch it was possible for the inner loop one to succeed, but the
outer one to not do so.

In your's this is not the case so I guess it's OK.

I wonder if it's so wise trying to do two things at once.  Here we are
adding the loop timeouts, and also changing to using jiffies based
timeouts rather than a chip timer register based one.

I preferred my patches because it solved one single problem, the lack
of loop limits.  The timeout mechanism could have been changed in
another followon patch.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/