linux-kernel - Re: Errant readings on LM81 with T2080 SoC

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: <62ee2a1c-19ea-8287-a438-ef7bdf5472de@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:07:50 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Cc:     "jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        "linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Errant readings on LM81 with T2080 SoC

On 3/11/21 3:47 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> 
> On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
>>>>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
>>>>> by the host.
>>>> One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per byte to know if they
>>>> should send ACK or NACK. If that interrupt is delayed, they stretch the
>>>> clock.
>>>>
>>> It feels like something like that is happening. Looking at the T2080
>>> Reference manual there is an interesting timing diagram (Figure 14-2 if
>>> someone feels like looking it up). It shows SCL low between the ACK for
>>> the address and the data byte. I think if we're delayed in sending the
>>> next byte we could violate Ttimeout or Tlow:mext from the SMBUS spec.
>>>
>> I think that really leaves you only two options that I can see:
>> Rework the driver to handle critical actions (such as setting TXAK,
>> and everything else that might result in clock stretching) in the
>> interrupt handler, or rework the driver to handle everything in
>> a high priority kernel thread.
> One thing I've found that does seem to avoid the problem is to disable 
> preemption, use polling and replace the schedule() in i2c_wait() with 
> udelay(50). That's kind of like the kernel thread option.

It is kind of hackish, though, especially since it makes the "loaded system"
situation even worse by adding even more active wait loops.

Guenter