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]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:32:40 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
Cc:     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, 25 Apr 2022 at 22:15, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

I am also okay with $subject patch - and I agree with you Linus, that
it sounds reasonable to pick something specific for RPMB. I guess the
question is rather what value to pick, but I guess Bean can have some
ideas for that, at least for Micron eMMCs. BTW, we do something very
similar for mmc_sanitize() already.

Kind regards
Uffe