linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] scsi: ufs: Add UFS-feature layer

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]

Message-ID: <CAGOxZ50TUnvmmdspxr6dHWrpoxZqHtvR-1Wg6jAVH6k-w5LT2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:27:19 +0530
From:   Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
Cc:     "daejun7.park@...sung.com" <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
        Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
        "tomas.winkler@...el.com" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sang-yoon Oh <sangyoon.oh@...sung.com>,
        Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@...sung.com>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
        Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
        Adel Choi <adel.choi@...sung.com>,
        BoRam Shin <boram.shin@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] scsi: ufs: Add UFS-feature layer

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:27 PM Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi, Bean
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 16:23 +0900, Daejun Park wrote:
> > > > +void ufsf_scan_features(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +       init_waitqueue_head(&hba->ufsf.sdev_wait);
> > > > +       atomic_set(&hba->ufsf.slave_conf_cnt, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (hba->dev_info.wspecversion >= HPB_SUPPORTED_VERSION &&
> > > > +           (hba->dev_info.b_ufs_feature_sup & UFS_DEV_HPB_SUPPORT))
> > >
> > > How about removing this check "(hba->dev_info.wspecversion >=
> > > HPB_SUPPORTED_VERSION" since ufs with lower version than v3.1 can add
> > > HPB feature by FFU,
> > > if (hba->dev_info.b_ufs_feature_sup  &UFS_FEATURE_SUPPORT_HPB_BIT) is
> > > enough.
> > OK, changing it seems no problem. But I want to know what other people
> > think
> > about this version checking code.
> HPB1.0 isn't part of ufs3.1, but published only later.
> Allowing earlier versions will required to quirk the descriptor sizes.
> I see Bean's point here, but I vote for adding it in a single quirk, when the time comes.
>
I second Avri here, older devices need a quirk to handle, let do that
as a separate patch.
> Thanks,
> Avri



-- 
Regards,
Alim