linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: core: Allows to override the timeout value for ioctl() path

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: <CACRpkdbM_qhwmFhwJNx0J_r2jUHoSsE6B=bKhGwKG=dXtX7uEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:15:43 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
Cc:     ulf.hansson@...aro.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        beanhuo@...ron.com, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: core: Allows to override the timeout value
 for ioctl() path

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:02 PM Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> wrote:

> I think the current solution is the most flexible way, if the customer
> wants to override the kernel default timeout, they know how to initiate
> the correct timeout value in ioctl() based on their specific
> hardware/software system. I don't know how to convince every maintainer
> and reviewer if we don't want to give this permission or want to
> maintain a unified timeout value in the kernel driver. Given that we
> already have eMMC ioctl() support, and we've opened the door to allow
> users to specify specific cmd_timeout_ms in struct mmc_ioc_cmd{},
> please consider my change.

The patch is fine, I'm just saying we should put another patch on
top that defines a RPMB default timeout and set it to something
high, such as a minute.

Yours,
Linus Walleij