linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: virtio: disable timeout handling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211019094203.3kjzch7ipbdv7peg@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:12:03 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>, wsa@...nel.org,
        jie.deng@...el.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: virtio: disable timeout handling

On 19-10-21, 11:36, Greg KH wrote:
> What is the "other side" here?  Is it something that you trust or not?

Other side can be a remote processor (for remoteproc over virtio or
something similar), or traditionally it can be host OS or host
firmware providing virtualisation to a Guest running Linux (this
driver). Or something else..

I would incline towards "we trust the other side" here.

> Usually we trust the hardware, but if you do not trust the hardware,
> then yes, you need to have a timeout here.

The other side is the software that has access to the _Real_ hardware,
and so we should trust it. So we can have a actually have a completion
without timeout here, interesting.

-- 
viresh