[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOtvUMfoND5iJi7p9YRb6C3To6FGTKGBSoD+cBhkHnLXSppKEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:11:42 +0200
From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] crypto: ccree - fix retry handling in cc_send_sync_request()
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:09 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@...der.be> wrote:
>
> If cc_queues_status() indicates that the queue is full,
> cc_send_sync_request() should loop and retry.
>
> However, cc_queues_status() returns either 0 (for success), or -ENOSPC
> (for queue full), while cc_send_sync_request() checks for real errors by
> comparing with -EAGAIN. Hence -ENOSPC is always considered a real
> error, and the code never retries the operation.
>
> Fix this by just removing the check, as cc_queues_status() never returns
> any other error value than -ENOSPC.
Thank you for spotting this!
The error is simply checking for the wrong error value.
We should be checking for -ENOSPC!
What this does aims to do is wait for the hardware queue to free up if
we were asked to queue a synchronous request and there was no room in
the hardware queue.
The cc_queue_status() function used to return -EAGAIN in this scenario
and this was missed in the change.
I'm curious as to how you found this - did you run into some problem
and traced it to this?
This can lead to a setkey() failing in very high load situations but I
expect this occurrence to be very rare indeed since cc_queue_status()
already loops several times waiting for the room to be freeed.
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
values of β will give rise to dom!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists