linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] cxl: Add a firmware update mechanism and cxl

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:   Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:39:41 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
Cc:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cxl: Add a firmware update mechanism and cxl_test
 emulation

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023, Vishal Verma wrote:

>The poll interval for the Transfer FW command is arbitrarily set at 1
>second, and a poll count of 300, giving us a total wait time of five
>minutes before which each slice of the transfer times out. This seems
>like a good mix of responsiveness and a total wait - the spec doesn't
>have any guidance on any upper or lower bounds for this. This likely
>does not need to be user-configurable, so for now it is just hard-coded
>in the driver.

Nothing against this, just thinking that in general, but we should
probably limit the poll interval to CXL_MAILBOX_TIMEOUT_MS. I'm not
sure, however, what would be a proper value across all commands. Or
would having this limit be per-cmd make more sense instead?

Thanks,
Davidlohr