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]

Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:46:22 +0200
From:	"Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@...omail.se>
To:	Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, khali@...ux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay

> > So bottomline, I suspect we will need to bump to 0x20000 if you want to 
> > keep the current loop termination and udelay().
> 
> That is just crazy, since your code works with a 32ms maximum.

I am sorry, I misread the number of zeroes here. If you are saying
that fours times the current number is enough for the error rate to
drop off on your machine, then I think we should just do that. It is
the only change I can think of that is safe enough at this stage.

Given that the irqsoff latency on a normal machine can be as high as
200 ms or so, it does not seem all that strange.

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/