linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] watchdog: wdat_wdg: Using the existed function to check parameter timeout

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c36d2b28-d4e2-b952-d3bc-e060a3cb7412@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 01:12:40 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
        Liu Xinpeng <liuxp11@...natelecom.cn>
Cc:     wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] watchdog: wdat_wdg: Using the existed function to
 check parameter timeout

On 4/25/22 23:10, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:35:17AM +0800, Liu Xinpeng wrote:
>> The module arguement timeout is a configured timeout value.
>> “separate minimum and maximum HW timeouts and configured timeout value.”
>> (patch v1 is explained by Guenter Roeck)
>>
>> So using watchdog_timeout_invalid to check timeout invalid is more justified.
> 
> The v3 commit message doesn't help too much for understanding the patch.  You
> could see [1] for some reference sentences.  See also [2].
> 
> [1]: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-watchdog/patch/1650874932-18407-2-git-send-email-liuxp11@chinatelecom.cn/#24831418
> [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc4/source/Documentation/watchdog/watchdog-kernel-api.rst#L95
> 
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/watchdog.h>
>>   
>>   #define MAX_WDAT_ACTIONS ACPI_WDAT_ACTION_RESERVED
>> +#define WDAT_TIMEOUT_MIN     1
> 
> To be consistent, would MIN_WDAT_TIMEOUT be a better name?
> 

Should just have set it to 1 below without using a define.

>> @@ -344,6 +345,7 @@ static int wdat_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	wdat->period = tbl->timer_period;
>>   	wdat->wdd.min_hw_heartbeat_ms = wdat->period * tbl->min_count;
>>   	wdat->wdd.max_hw_heartbeat_ms = wdat->period * tbl->max_count;
>> +	wdat->wdd.min_timeout = WDAT_TIMEOUT_MIN;
> 
> Does it really need to configure the `min_timeout`?  What if leave it as is
> (i.e. 0)?

It is better to set it to 1. Otherwise "0" is considered a valid timeout,
which doesn't make much sense.

Guenter