linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm

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:   Thu, 10 May 2018 18:11:50 +0530
From:   Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
        jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, tpmdd@...horst.net,
        jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, patrickc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit()



On 05/08/2018 10:04 PM, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>>           do {
>> -            tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP);
>> +            tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
>>
> I'm just curious why it was decided to still use tpm_msleep() here 
> instead of usleep_range() which was used in the 2nd patch.

TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL is in msec i.e. 1 msec and usleep_range() is used only 
when timeout is needed in usecs.

>
> Otherwise,
>
> Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>

Thanks !!

Thanks & Regards,
     - Nayna