[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F88C5DDA1E80143B232E89585ACE27D0263D40B@DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:50:23 +0000
From: "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>
To: Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"computersforpeace@...il.com" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"bbrezillon@...nel.org" <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
"marek.vasut@...il.com" <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
"richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
"joakim.tjernlund@...inera.com" <joakim.tjernlund@...inera.com>,
"ikegami@...ied-telesis.co.jp" <ikegami@...ied-telesis.co.jp>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] cfi: fix deadloop in cfi_cmdset_0002.c
do_write_buffer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vignesh R [mailto:vigneshr@...com]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:59 PM
> To: liujian (CE) <liujian56@...wei.com>; dwmw2@...radead.org;
> computersforpeace@...il.com; bbrezillon@...nel.org;
> marek.vasut@...il.com; richard@....at; joakim.tjernlund@...inera.com;
> ikegami@...ied-telesis.co.jp; keescook@...omium.org
> Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cfi: fix deadloop in cfi_cmdset_0002.c do_write_buffer
>
>
>
> On 20/02/19 2:17 AM, Liu Jian wrote:
> > In function do_write_buffer(), in the for loop, there is a case
> > chip_ready() returns 1 while chip_good() returns 0, so it never break
> > the loop.
> > To fix this, chip_good() is enough and it should timeout if it stay
> > bad for a while.
> >
> > Fixes: dfeae1073583 ("mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Change write buffer to
> > check correct value")
> > Signed-off-by: Yi Huaijie <yihuaijie@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Jian <liujian56@...wei.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami_to@...oo.co.jp>
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > change git log, put the Fixes tag on a single line
> >
> > drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > index 72428b6..818e94b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > @@ -1876,14 +1876,14 @@ static int __xipram do_write_buffer(struct
> map_info *map, struct flchip *chip,
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > - if (time_after(jiffies, timeo) && !chip_ready(map, adr))
> > - break;
> > -
> > if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
> > xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> > goto op_done;
> > }
> >
> > + if (time_after(jiffies, timeo))
> > + break;
> > +
>
> It is quite possible that this thread might be pre-empted just after
> chip_good() check but before before time_after(). If the thread, then resumes
> execution after timeo has elasped then, this code will wrongly indicate write
> failure.
>
> To avoid this case, you should add one more check for check_good() even when
> time_after() returns true. Something like:
>
> if (time_after(jiffies, timeo)) {
> if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
> xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> goto op_done;
> }
> break;
> }
>
So, the patch should like this ?
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
index 72428b6..3da2376 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
@@ -1876,7 +1876,7 @@ static int __xipram do_write_buffer(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip,
continue;
}
- if (time_after(jiffies, timeo) && !chip_ready(map, adr))
+ if (time_after(jiffies, timeo) && !chip_good(map, adr, datum))
break;
if (chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
Any other opinions?
If there are no other comments, I will send a patch again
>
> > /* Latency issues. Drop the lock, wait a while and retry */
> > UDELAY(map, chip, adr, 1);
> > }
> >
>
> --
> Regards
> Vignesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists