| 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: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:45:13 +0000
From: "Opensource [Steve Twiss]" <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: LINUXKERNEL <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
DEVICETREE <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
LINUXINPUT <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
RTCLINUX <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V1 5/6] watchdog: da9062: DA9062 watchdog driver
On 06 May 2015 21:07 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > The DA9062 watchdog ping (register CONTROL_F) is "windowed" for protection
> > > > against spurious writes -- i.e. the ping function cannot be called within a 250ms
> > > > time limit or the PMIC will reset. This windowing protection also extends to altering
> > > > the timeout scale in the CONTROL_D register -- in which case if the timeout
> > > > register is altered and the ping() function is called within the 250ms limit, the
> > > > PMIC will reset. The delay is there to stop that from happening.
> > > >
> > > > I realised my previous patch was over-sanitised: by putting the time delay into the
> > > > ping() function I was protecting CONTROL_D in stop() and update_timeout_register(),
> > > > but I was being too over-protective of the ping() function. Therefore if there was an
> > > > "incorrect trigger signal", the watchdog would not be allowed to fail because the
> > > > driver would have filtered out the errors.
> > > >
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > From your description, it sounds like the protection is only necessary if there
> > > was a previous write to the same register(s).
Hi Guenter,
A clarification from me. It is not the CONTROL_D register that needs protecting, but when
the CONTROL_D register is altered the function call also performs a CONTROL_F watchdog
ping. Too many pings close together would cause the PMIC reset.
> > > If so, it might make sense to record the time of such writes, and only add the delay
> > > if necessary, and only for the remainder of the time.
I've tried it several ways, but my previous suggestion of putting the delays in the stop() and
update_timeout_register() functions just cause even more lengthy delays.
So, I've followed your suggestion and used a variable delay inside the ping() function instead:
this seems to cause a lot less delay. A debug message can be used to notify the user if the
watchdog is trying to be kicked too quickly -- that would be more preferable than just shutting
the PMIC down and still provide a notification that something wasn't quite right.
> > > Would this be possible ?
I'll run the tests overnight.
I'm going to do something like this:
diff --git a/linux-next/v4.0/drivers/watchdog/da9062_wdt.c b/linux-next/v4.0/drivers/watchdog/da9062_wdt.c
index ad80261..d596910 100644
--- a/gp_sparse/linux-next/v4.0/drivers/watchdog/da9062_wdt.c
+++ b/gp_sparse/linux-next/v4.0/drivers/watchdog/da9062_wdt.c
@@ -32,12 +33,37 @@ static const unsigned int wdt_timeout[] = { 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 65, 131 };
#define DA9062_WDT_MIN_TIMEOUT wdt_timeout[DA9062_TWDSCALE_MIN]
#define DA9062_WDT_MAX_TIMEOUT wdt_timeout[DA9062_TWDSCALE_MAX]
#define DA9062_WDG_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT wdt_timeout[DA9062_TWDSCALE_MAX-1]
+#define DA9062_RESET_PROTECTION_MS 300
struct da9062_watchdog {
struct da9062 *hw;
struct watchdog_device wdtdev;
+ unsigned long j_time_stamp;
};
+static void da9062_set_window_start(struct da9062_watchdog *wdt)
+{
+ wdt->j_time_stamp = jiffies;
+}
+
+static void da9062_apply_window_protection(struct da9062_watchdog *wdt)
+{
+ unsigned long delay = msecs_to_jiffies(DA9062_RESET_PROTECTION_MS);
+ unsigned long timeout = wdt->j_time_stamp + delay;
+ unsigned long now = jiffies;
+ unsigned int diff_ms;
+
+ /* if time-limit has not elapsed then wait for remainder */
+ if (time_before(now, timeout)) {
+ diff_ms = jiffies_to_msecs(timeout-now);
+ dev_dbg(wdt->hw->dev,
+ "Delaying watchdog ping by %u msecs\n", diff_ms);
+ mdelay(diff_ms);
+ }
+
+ return;
+}
+
static unsigned int da9062_wdt_timeout_to_sel(unsigned int secs)
{
unsigned int i;
@@ -50,26 +76,29 @@ static unsigned int da9062_wdt_timeout_to_sel(unsigned int secs)
return DA9062_TWDSCALE_MAX;
}
-static int da9062_reset_watchdog_timer(struct da9062 *hw)
+static int da9062_reset_watchdog_timer(struct da9062_watchdog *wdt)
{
int ret;
- ret = regmap_update_bits(hw->regmap,
+ da9062_apply_window_protection(wdt);
+
+ ret = regmap_update_bits(wdt->hw->regmap,
DA9062AA_CONTROL_F,
DA9062AA_WATCHDOG_MASK,
DA9062AA_WATCHDOG_MASK);
- mdelay(300);
+ da9062_set_window_start(wdt);
return ret;
}
[...]
@@ -216,6 +245,8 @@ static int da9062_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
dev_err(wdt->hw->dev,
"watchdog registration incomplete (%d)\n", ret);
+ da9062_set_window_start(wdt);
+
da9062_wdt_ping(&wdt->wdtdev);
if (ret < 0)
dev_err(wdt->hw->dev,
--
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