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  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, 4 Apr 2017 20:24:33 -0500
From:   Christopher Bostic <cbostic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Alistair Popple <alistair@...ple.id.au>,
        "Edward A . James" <eajames@...ibm.com>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 19/23] drivers/fsi: Add GPIO based FSI master



On 4/4/17 5:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 12:32 -0500, Christopher Bostic wrote:
>> Agreed that there is room for improvement.   I intend to look further
>> into your suggestions from here and our private conversation on the
>> matter and make changes as appropriate.  I have an open issue to track
>> this.  As it exists in this patch reads/writes from master to slave
>> fundamentally work.
> My understanding is they "seem to work if you get lucky with the timing
> and fall apart under load". Or did I hear wrong ?
>
>>   Given the pervasiveness and time to fully evaluate
>> and test any protocol updates I intend address this in the near future
>> with a separate follow on patch.
> Please try the simple change I proposed in my email. It's a 4 or 5
> lines change max to your clock_toggle function and how it's called in
> send and receive. It should be trivial to check if things still "seem
> to work" to begin with.
>
> Do you have some kind of test mechanism that hammers the FSI
> continuously ? Such as doing a series of putmemproc/getmemproc &
> checking the values ?
>
> Then you can run that while hammering the LPC bus and generally putting
> the BMC under load and you'll quickly see if it's reliable or not.

Hi Ben,

I do now have a mechanism that puts the bus under heavy load.  I'll look 
into your changes tomorrow.

Thanks,
Chris
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists