linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 1/1] nvme: Add quirk for LiteON CL1 devices running FW 220TQ,22001

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:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:13:27 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Jongpil Jung <jongpuls@...il.com>
Cc:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gloria.tsai@...tc.com, jongpil19.jung@...sung.com,
        jongheony.kim@...sung.com, dj54.sohn@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/1] nvme: Add quirk for LiteON CL1 devices running
 FW 220TQ,22001

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 03:55:29PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'm still worried about this.
> 
> If power state based suspend does always work despite a HMB and is
> preferred for the specific Google board we should have purely a DMI
> based quirk for the board independent of the NVMe controller used with
> it.
> 
> But if these LiteON devices can't properly handle nvme_dev_disable
> calls we have much deeper problems, because it can be called in all
> kinds of places, including suspending when not on this specific board.
> 
> That being said, I still really do not understand this sentence and thus
> the problem at all:
> 
> > When NVMe device receive D3hot from host, NVMe firmware will do
> > garbage collection. While NVMe device do Garbage collection,
> > firmware has chance to going incorrect address.

Any progress in describing the problem a little better?