linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] pci: VPD access timeout increase

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]

Message-ID: <20080904161051.GL2772@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:10:51 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pci: VPD access timeout increase

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:19:46PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:57:13PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Accessing the VPD area can take a long time. There are comments in the
> > > SysKonnect vendor driver that it can take up to 25ms.  The existing vpd
> > > access code fails consistently on my hardware.
> > 
> > Wow, that's slow.  If you were to try to read all 32k, it'd take more
> > than three minutes!  (I presume it doesn't actually have as much as 32k).
> > 
> > > Change the access routines to:
> > >   * use a mutex rather than spinning with IRQ's disabled and lock held
> > >   * have a longer timeout
> > >   * call schedule while spinning to provide some responsivness
> > 
> > I agree with your approach, but have one minor comment:
> > 
> > > -	spin_lock_irq(&vpd->lock);
> > > +	mutex_lock(&vpd->lock);
> > 
> > This should be:
> > 
> > +	if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&vpd->lock))
> > +		return -EINTR;
> [...]
> 
> This is fine for the sysfs case, but not if this is called during device
> probe - we don't want signals to modprobe to break device initialisation,
> do we?

Probably only fatal signals -- in which case the if (signal_pending)
check should be a fatal_signal_pending() and mutex_lock_interruptible()
should be mutex_lock_killable().

OTOH, who's signalling modprobe to do anything other than die?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/