linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: dra7xx: Fix reset behaviour

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: <58aaadb4-c643-76ce-bda0-294bb2300137@lucaceresoli.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:13:38 +0200
From:   Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: dra7xx: Fix reset behaviour

Hi Pali,

On 22/06/21 13:06, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Tuesday 22 June 2021 12:57:22 Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> Nothing happened after a few weeks... I understand that knowing the
>> correct reset timings is relevant, but unfortunately I cannot help much
>> in finding out the correct values.
>>
>> However I'm wondering what should happen to this patch. It *does* fix a
>> real bug, but potentially with an incorrect or non-optimal usleep range.
>> Do we really want to ignore a bugfix because we are not sure about how
>> long this delay should be?
> 
> As there is no better solution right now, I'm fine with your patch. But
> patch needs to be approved by Lorenzo, so please wait for his final
> answer.
> 
> I would suggest to add a comment for call "usleep_range(1000, 2000);"
> that you have chosen some "random" values which worked fine on your
> setup and that they fix mentioned bug. Comment just to mark this sleep
> code that is suboptimal / not-so-correct and to prevent other people to
> copy+paste this code into other (new) drivers...

Sure, good idea.

I'm following this thread and will send v3 after a direction is agreed upon.

-- 
Luca