linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] mtd: rawnand: stm32_fmc2: use FMC2_TIMEOUT

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:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:35:29 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...com>
Cc:     <richard@....at>, <vigneshr@...com>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>, <tony@...mide.com>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <marex@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] mtd: rawnand: stm32_fmc2: use FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS
 for timeouts

Hi Christophe,

Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...com> wrote on Wed, 29 Apr
2020 11:27:43 +0200:

> Hi Miquèl,
> 
> On 4/27/20 8:22 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Christophe,
> > 
> > Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...com> wrote on Wed, 15 Apr
> > 2020 17:57:30 +0200:
> >   
> >> This patch removes the constant FMC2_TIMEOUT_US.
> >> FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS is set to 5 seconds and this constant is used
> >> each time that we need to wait (except when the timeout value
> >> is set by the framework)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c | 11 +++++------
> >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
> >> index ab53314..f159c39 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/stm32_fmc2_nand.c
> >> @@ -37,8 +37,7 @@
> >>   /* Max ECC buffer length */
> >>   #define FMC2_MAX_ECC_BUF_LEN		(FMC2_BCHDSRS_LEN * FMC2_MAX_SG)  
> >>   >> -#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_US			1000  
> >> -#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS			1000
> >> +#define FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS			5000  
> >>   >>   /* Timings */  
> >>   #define FMC2_THIZ			1
> >> @@ -525,9 +524,9 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_ham_calculate(struct nand_chip *chip, const u8 *data,
> >>   	u32 sr, heccr;
> >>   	int ret;  
> >>   >> -	ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR,  
> >> -					 sr, sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 10,
> >> -					 FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS);
> >> +	ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR,
> >> +						sr, sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 1,
> >> +						1000 * FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS);  
> > 
> > Is the _atomic suffix needed here? If yes it would deserve a separate
> > patch with Fixes/Stable tags.
> >   
> 
> I have currently not seen any issues. So, I will remove this modification as we will move to regmap_read_poll_timeout in patch 10.
> 
> >>   	if (ret) {
> >>   		dev_err(fmc2->dev, "ham timeout\n");
> >>   		return ret;
> >> @@ -1315,7 +1314,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned long timeout_ms)
> >>   	/* Check if there is no pending requests to the NAND flash */
> >>   	if (readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(fmc2->io_base + FMC2_SR, sr,
> >>   					      sr & FMC2_SR_NWRF, 1,
> >> -					      FMC2_TIMEOUT_US))
> >> +					      1000 * FMC2_TIMEOUT_MS))
> >>   		dev_warn(fmc2->dev, "Waitrdy timeout\n");  
> >>   >>   	/* Wait tWB before R/B# signal is low */  
> > 
> > You change the timeouts from 1ms to 5s.
> > 
> > Maybe 5s is a little bit too much IMHO but we don't really care as this
> > is a timeout. However 1ms is tight. If you are changing this value
> > because it triggers error (eg. when the machine is loaded), then it is
> > a fix and should appear like it.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Miquèl
> >   
> 
> No errors currently happens.
> During our stress tests, in a overloaded system, we have seen that we could be close to 1 second, even if we never met this value.
> So, to be safe, I have set this timeout to 5 seconds.
> As it is just a timeout value, I have not seen any side effect.
> I am using the same timeout constant to avoid to have one timeout per cases.

Something is wrong in my mind:
You say you observe delays of almost up to 1 second, but the polling
currently happens on 1000 us = 1ms, either you had timeouts or I
misread something?

Thanks,
Miquèl