linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay

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: <20120916093520.GA5623@polaris.bitmath.org>
Date:	Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:35:20 +0200
From:	"Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@...omail.se>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, khali@...ux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 09:31:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:29:58PM -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Also, since the delay time can get quite large, would it make sense to replace
> > > > udelay with usleep_range() ?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, I think that would be a good thing to do. We could sleep in range of 
> > > us<<=1 and us<<1 and if usleep_range() returns actual sleep time we can 
> > > factor that in for next loop iteration if necessary. Gotta think a bit on 
> > > that one.
> > > 
> > > I will rework the patch to fix the loop termination and keep the bump to 
> > > 0x10000 in place and possibly also experiment with usleep_range().
> > > 
> > 
> > Below is what I am experimenting with right now. I chose to keep the 
> > APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT to current 0x8000 (32ms). With the fixed loop 
> > termination and use of usleep_range() instead of udelay - I will try to 
> > run this a couple days and see if I can recreate the failure within 32ms.
> > 
> > Does this look ok? (I haven't yet changed send_byte to use usleep_range - 
> > if this approach looks ok I can change that as well.)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c b/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> > index 2827088..6610037 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/applesmc.c
> > @@ -168,15 +168,20 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *applesmc_led_wq;
> >  static int wait_read(void)
> >  {
> >  	u8 status;
> > -	int us;
> > -	for (us = APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT; us < APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT; us <<= 1) {
> > -		udelay(us);
> > +	unsigned long r1_us = APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT;
> > +	unsigned long r2_us;
> > +	do {
> >  		status = inb(APPLESMC_CMD_PORT);
> >  		/* read: wait for smc to settle */
> >  		if (status & 0x01)
> >  			return 0;
> > -	}
> > -
> > +		r2_us = r1_us << 2;
> > +		if (r2_us > APPLESMC_MAX_WAIT)
> > +			goto fail;
> > +		usleep_range(r1_us, r2_us);
> > +		r1_us = r2_us;
> 
> That looks terribly complicated. Better keep the loop, and just replace
> 	udelay(us);
> with something like
> 	usleep_range(us, us << 1);
> 
> Alternatively, just use a constant such as
> 	usleep_range(us, us + APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT);

It would be worthwhile to check if there are other bits in status that
encodes a busy state, similar to what we now have in send_byte(). This
is what has finally made almost all machines error-free. Increasing
the max wait is possible, of course, but it only kills the symptoms.

So, Parag, would it be possible for you to print the status field as
you go through one of those long waits? If you find a bit that seems
to change occasionally, you could try to use it as a busy indicator,
and use the APPLESMC_RETRY_WAIT for that case.

As for the rearrangement to remove the initial wait time, it is quite
possible that we can simply reduce APPLESMC_MIN_WAIT to zero-ish,
provided we understand the status bits that tell us when to actually
wait.

Thanks,
Henrik
--
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/