linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] usb: dbc: early driver for xhci debug capability

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:57:36 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] usb: dbc: early driver for xhci debug capability

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:23:55AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Hiding essentially an early udelay() implementation in an early-printk driver is 
> > > ugly and counterproductive.

> Yeah - so could we do this in a more generic fashion, not in the early-printk 
> driver but in core x86 code?

So ideally early_printk() would not depend on udelay() being setup.

In fact, ideally early_printk() wouldn't even use udelay -- this very
much includes its own copy.

Why is udelay() required? Can't the thing simply poll its own register
state to wait for completion?

This all sounds like xdbc cruft is still unreliably garbage..