linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: core: Pass down user specified timeout value to sanitize

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: <CAPDyKFr-nNkpgjSojaRAOAEBPD3foi2GTJ=6EcyoEe89HQm61w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:51:57 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
Cc:     "Shimoda, Yoshihiro" <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: core: Pass down user specified timeout value
 to sanitize

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 11:24, Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
>
> As the density increases, the 4-minute timeout value for
> sanitize is no longer feasible. At the same time, devices
> of different densities have different timeout values, and it is
> difficult to obtain a unified standard timeout value. Therefore,
> it is better to pass down user-specified sanitize timeout value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>

Applied for next, thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe


> ---
>  drivers/mmc/core/block.c   | 2 +-
>  drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c | 7 +++++--
>  drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.h | 2 +-
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> index fe5892d30778..8bfd4d95b386 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> @@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
>
>         if ((MMC_EXTRACT_INDEX_FROM_ARG(cmd.arg) == EXT_CSD_SANITIZE_START) &&
>             (cmd.opcode == MMC_SWITCH))
> -               return mmc_sanitize(card);
> +               return mmc_sanitize(card, idata->ic.cmd_timeout_ms);
>
>         mmc_wait_for_req(card->host, &mrq);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
> index f413474f0f80..ccca067db993 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
> @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ int mmc_cmdq_disable(struct mmc_card *card)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mmc_cmdq_disable);
>
> -int mmc_sanitize(struct mmc_card *card)
> +int mmc_sanitize(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int timeout_ms)
>  {
>         struct mmc_host *host = card->host;
>         int err;
> @@ -1020,12 +1020,15 @@ int mmc_sanitize(struct mmc_card *card)
>                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>         }
>
> +       if (!timeout_ms)
> +               timeout_ms = MMC_SANITIZE_TIMEOUT_MS;
> +
>         pr_debug("%s: Sanitize in progress...\n", mmc_hostname(host));
>
>         mmc_retune_hold(host);
>
>         err = mmc_switch(card, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, EXT_CSD_SANITIZE_START,
> -                        1, MMC_SANITIZE_TIMEOUT_MS);
> +                        1, timeout_ms);
>         if (err)
>                 pr_err("%s: Sanitize failed err=%d\n", mmc_hostname(host), err);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.h b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.h
> index 632009260e51..1ed0d0375780 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.h
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.h
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ void mmc_run_bkops(struct mmc_card *card);
>  int mmc_flush_cache(struct mmc_card *card);
>  int mmc_cmdq_enable(struct mmc_card *card);
>  int mmc_cmdq_disable(struct mmc_card *card);
> -int mmc_sanitize(struct mmc_card *card);
> +int mmc_sanitize(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int timeout_ms);
>
>  #endif
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>