linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] watchdog: qcom_wdt: set WDOG_HW

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 10:49:08 +0530
From:   Kathiravan T <kathirav@...eaurora.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, agross@...nel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] watchdog: qcom_wdt: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING bit when
 appropriate


On 11/2/2020 10:33 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/1/20 7:58 PM, Kathiravan T wrote:
>> On 10/31/2020 7:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 10/31/20 5:11 AM, Robert Marko wrote:
>>>> If the watchdog hardware is enabled/running during boot, e.g.
>>>> due to a boot loader configuring it, we must tell the
>>>> watchdog framework about this fact so that it can ping the
>>>> watchdog until userspace opens the device and takes over
>>>> control.
>>>>
>>>> Do so using the WDOG_HW_RUNNING flag that exists for exactly
>>>> that use-case.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>
>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> Thanks for addressing the comments and now the patch looks good to me. One more suggestion, can we make the initcall level of the driver to subsys_initcall_sync so that the driver gets registered immediately after the watchdog_core is registered and watchdog_core starts pinging the WDT?
>>
> That would mean to replace module_platform_driver(), which would be a whole
> different discussion, is not widely needed, and would potentially interfere
> with the subsys_initcall_sync() in the watchdog core. This will require
> specific evidence that a problem is seen in the field, and that it is truly
> needed. Plus, it would have to be a different patch (which you could submit
> yourself, with evidence). Let's stick with one logical change per patch,
> please.
>
> Guenter
Yeah, of course I don't want to squash the initcall level change with 
this one. Just made a suggestion to consider it. Anyway I will try to 
collect some data and post the patch by own on that suggestion. Thanks 
Guenter.

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation