linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] Time out for possible dead loops during queued invalidation wait

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]

Message-ID: <A6AD88C3F2289247BE726C37303E1EB8AF933281@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 16:25:52 -0700
From:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:	'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	"'dwmw2@...radead.org'" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	"'mingo@...e.hu'" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org'" 
	<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Time out for possible dead loops during queued
 invalidation wait

>> Which error code is better? Is EAGAIN ok?
>
>That depends on driver details - probably EIO would be suitable, dunno.
>
>But all the callers of qi_submit_sync() seem to just drop the error
>code on the floor:
>
>	/* should never fail */
>	qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
>
>and may well cause a kernel crash as a result.

Should the code go to kernel panic after timeout in qi_submit_sync() loops? When timeout (10 seconds) in the loops, something in hardware could be wrong.

Thanks.

-Fenghua
--
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/