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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:43:42 +0100 From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] serial: 8250, disable "too much work" messages > So, according to Takashi's measurements, we would need over 15000 loops > on a single port. Of course, this value is highly dependent on a system. > On my system, it is like 7 times lower (2100). And it lasts ~300ms here. > > I suppose a limit like 32k loops is way too much and I just should go > and implement the polling. Or what about adding inter-character sleeps > to qemu to correspond to the speed? I can do that too, but I am not sure > if limiting the throughput will be accepted by them. The other option would be to detect qemu as a buggy uart, log a warning and ignore the test on it. I think polling might be better, and that would probably fix hang cases on real buggy uarts where right now we sometimes keel over. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists