linux-kernel - Re: SATA link power management issues

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:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:08 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	stripathi@....com
Subject: Re: SATA link power management issues

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:29:38PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> Doing some quick tests I found that in some cases it takes 5 or 6
> seconds for the first interrupt to arrive, so I'd have to use a quite
> long interval to completely prevent errors.

Hmm...

> I am wondering if it would be better using my original solution
> (i.e. ignore first event), but make it device specific given that it
> might make no sense on other systems and seems to be more reliable than
> the time-based one.

I'm not sure.  What if the extra PHY event isn't that reliable.  It'd
be pretty confusing if it ends up ignoring a legitimate PHY event
after, say, two hours, so one way or the other, we'd need to cap how
long we're gonna be ignoring the event.  Ignore the first PHY event
for 10s after LPM state change?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/