linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc_core: fix data timeout for SEND_EXT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:22:43 +0000
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
Cc:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc_core: fix data timeout for SEND_EXT_CSD

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> ext Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>
>> I'm confused. Where did the 64 come from in the first place? That
>> function will not be called for CID/CSD when !SPI. So the way I see it
>> the code should be:
>>
>> if ((opcode == MMC_SEND_CSD) || (opcode == (MMC_SEND_CID)) {
>>         data.timeout_ns = 0;
>>         data.timeout_clks = 8;
>> } else {
>>         mmc_set_data_timeout(&data, card);
>> }
>
> Theoretically yes, it should be 8 not 64 - if all the SPI devices obey
> the standard.  As I do not have an SPI device I did not feel comfortable
> changing it.  Also 64 clocks is not a long time anyway, so it did not
> seem to do any harm.

When I wrote the code, I got the 64 clock cycle timeout from the MMC
spec that I was looking at. Unfortunately, I don't have the spec in
front of me at the moment. It is possible that I read the timeout for
the !SPI case, though.
--
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/