linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: pwrseq: Use highest priority for eMMC restart handler

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: <562B0F44.1080007@samsung.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Oct 2015 10:25:32 +0530
From:	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Markus Reichl <m.reichl@...etechno.de>,
	Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: pwrseq: Use highest priority for eMMC restart handler



On 10/22/2015 09:04 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Krzysztof,
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> I think at least one platform may be affected because it used
>> mmc-pwrseq-emmc and gpio-restart.
>>
>> Look at rk3288-veyron.dtsi.
>>
>> Both of restart handlers had the priority of 129 which means that the
>> order of execution depends on probing sequence. Now you will make the
>> sequence strict - first mmc then gpio.
>>
>> You seems convinced that this is not a problem... I don't know. I would
>> prefer test this on affected platforms before risking to break them.
>> It's annoying if fix for one SoC breaks another.
>
> Assuming I'm understanding things properly, veyron isn't using 129 as
> a priority.  In the dts file:
>
>          gpio-restart {
>                  compatible = "gpio-restart";
>                  gpios = <&gpio0 13 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>                  pinctrl-names = "default";
>                  pinctrl-0 = <&ap_warm_reset_h>;
>                  priority = <200>;
>          };
>
> ...so it overrides the default 129 with 200.  Ah, but Javier already
> pointed that out in his reply.
>
>>> Since the current mmc_pwrseq_emmc_reset_nb notifier priority is 129,
>>> eMMC reset will not work if one of the platforms you mentioned needs
>>> this since the system restart handler with prio 192 will be executed
>>> before the eMMC one, leaving the eMMC in an unknown state on reboot.
>>
>> And now you will "fix this" by making eMMC working correctly. So let's
>> make it straight:
>> 1. Previously the eMMC could be left on these platforms in an unknown
>> state (because emmc handler was not executed).
>> 2. No one complained! Which could mean that in fact this was working fine...
>> 3. Now you will change it.
>> 4. Maybe someone will complain?
>
> On veyron boards the reset shouldn't hurt.  The eMMC reset will
> actually get asserted at reset anyway since the reset will reset GPIO
> states and the default GPIO state for the eMMC line asserts reset.
>
> OK, I just picked this onto Heiko's somewhat "stable-tree"
> (v4.3-rc3-876-g6509232) from
> <https://github.com/mmind/linux-rockchip/>.  I put printouts in
> __mmc_pwrseq_emmc_reset() to confirm it was getting called.  I then
> rebooted.  I then saw:
>
> [   36.175732] reboot: Restarting system
> [   36.179400] DOUG: resetting emmc
> [   36.182829] DOUG: resetting emmc done
>
> ...and the reboot worked normally (which means that the GPIO restart
> got called since otherwise I would have gotten TPM errors).
>
> So I'd say that for rk3288-veyron-jerry:
>
> Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>
Thank you!
>
> Note that personally I would only choose the "highest" priority as an
> absolute last resort.  Leaving a little extra slack in there means
> that when the next person comes up with a really good reason to run
> before you do that they can do it without changing your code.  All
> good BASIC programmers know to skip "10" in their first version for
> just this reason.  ;)
>
> If I were to pick a number, I suppose I'd pick something like "220",
> but that's pretty arbitrary.  I would have picked 200 except that it
> appears that would race with veyron's choice.
>
> -Doug
>
--
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/