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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 13:31:40 +0100 From: Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>, "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>, "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>, "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>, "tomas.winkler@...el.com" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>, "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org> Cc: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Keep device power on only fWriteBoosterBufferFlushDuringHibernate == 1 On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 12:15 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > so, you agree the possiblity of failure exists. > > I was more relating to the lottery part. It doesn't matter. even the possibility of winning a lottery is very low, but still there is. > > > > > Hence we need-not any extra logic protecting device management > > > command failures. > > > > what extra logic? > > > > > > > > if reading the configuration pass correctly, and UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN > > > is > > > set, > > > > > > UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN set is DRAM level. still in the cache. > > > > > one should expect that any other functionality would work. > > > > > > > No, The programming will consume more power than reading, the > > later setting will more possbile fail than reading. > > > > > Otherwise, any non-standard behavior should be added with a > > > quirk. > > > > > > > NO, this is not what is standard or non-standard. This is > > independent > > of UFS device/controller. It is a software design. IMO, we didn't > > deal > > with programming status that is a potential bug. If having to > > impose to > > a component, do you think should be controller or device? Instead > > of > > addin a quirk, I prefer dropping this patch. > > It seems you are adding some special treatment in case some device > management command failed, > A vanishingly unlikely event but a one that has significant impact > over power consumption. again, there is nothing with device. Obviously, you didn't do system reliability testing in harsh environment. you don't believe this is WB driver bug. I will send my next version patch with a fix-tag. even It cannot merge. but I want to highlight it is a bug. Thanks, Bean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists