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]

Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 03:46:58 +0000
From:   Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, 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 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.
I've made some reasonable progress on making i2c-mpc more interrupt 
driven. Assuming it works out for my use-case is there an opinion on 
making interrupt support mandatory? Looking at all the in-tree dts files 
that use one of the compatible strings from i2c-mpc.c they all have 
interrupt properties so in theory nothing is using the polling mode. But 
there may be some out-of-tree boards or boards using an old dtb that 
would be affected?