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: <653426a77669eaced17e9e5aa87259ad57514c47.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:41:55 +0200
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com>,
        Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
Cc:     "daejun7.park@...sung.com" <daejun7.park@...sung.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, 2020-06-17 at 14:27 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> > > > > +       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
> 
> 

what is useful point of adding a quirk for this?

>From the customer side piont, they just get our FW image, and then do
FFU. If adding a quirk here, that means they also need to change UFS
driver. Also,  you expand the qurik structure.


from cambridge dictionary: 
Qurik: 
	an unusual habit or part of someone's personality, or something
	that
is strange and unexpected.

HPB feature is unexpected??


please tell me the useful point of adding a Quirk.

Bean
>