linux-kernel - [PATCH] intel8x0m: schedule timeout before warm reset check

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

Date:	Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:23:58 +0100
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] intel8x0m: schedule timeout before warm reset check

At every resume a laptop I use prints this message (at KERN_ERR level):
    ALSA sound/pci/intel8x0m.c:904: AC'97 warm reset still in progress?
[0x2]

The thing to note here is that 0x2 corresponds to ICH_AC97COLD. Ie, what
seems to be happening is that the register involved indicated a warm
reset for some time (as the ICH_AC97WARM bit was set) but by the time
the warning is printed, and that same register is checked again, that
bit is already cleared and only the ICH_AC97COLD bit is still set.

It turns out a warm reset needs some time to settle, but it is currently
checked right away. The test therefore fails the first time it is done
and schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() will be called. Once we return
from that jiffies is already (far) past end_time on this laptop, so we
exit the loop, print a warning, and exit the function while the warm
reset actually succeeded.

One way to fix this is to call schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() at the
start of the loop. (This might punish the "finish cold reset" case, but
on this laptop such a cold reset apparently never happens, so I can't
say for sure.)

While we're at it drop the extra single tick from end_time, as it looks
rather silly.

Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
---
The question I asked in the previous message ("snd_intel8x0m: error
message because return value is unused?") made little sense. I probably
got quite confused by my own efforts to debug this.

 sound/pci/intel8x0m.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/pci/intel8x0m.c b/sound/pci/intel8x0m.c
index 13cec1e..9abff7b 100644
--- a/sound/pci/intel8x0m.c
+++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0m.c
@@ -894,11 +894,11 @@ static int snd_intel8x0m_ich_chip_init(struct intel8x0m *chip, int probing)
        /* finish cold or do warm reset */
        cnt |= (cnt & ICH_AC97COLD) == 0 ? ICH_AC97COLD : ICH_AC97WARM;
        iputdword(chip, ICHREG(GLOB_CNT), cnt);
-       end_time = (jiffies + (HZ / 4)) + 1;
+       end_time = jiffies + HZ / 4;
        do {
+               schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
                if ((igetdword(chip, ICHREG(GLOB_CNT)) & ICH_AC97WARM) == 0)
                        goto __ok;
-               schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
        } while (time_after_eq(end_time, jiffies));
        snd_printk(KERN_ERR "AC'97 warm reset still in progress? [0x%x]\n",
                   igetdword(chip, ICHREG(GLOB_CNT)));
-- 
1.7.4.1

--
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/