linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ufs: mcq: Add support for clean up mcq resources

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: <12308ca3-f824-596e-078f-bc00fa674aef@acm.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:08:44 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     "Bao D. Nguyen" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>,
        quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com, quic_cang@...cinc.com, mani@...nel.org,
        Powen.Kao@...iatek.com, stanley.chu@...iatek.com,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, avri.altman@....com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ufs: mcq: Add support for clean up mcq resources

On 4/17/23 14:05, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
> @@ -3110,7 +3128,7 @@ static int ufshcd_wait_for_dev_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>   		err = -ETIMEDOUT;
>   		dev_dbg(hba->dev, "%s: dev_cmd request timedout, tag %d\n",
>   			__func__, lrbp->task_tag);
> -		if (ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1U << lrbp->task_tag) == 0) {
> +		if (ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1UL << lrbp->task_tag) == 0) {
>   			/* successfully cleared the command, retry if needed */
>   			err = -EAGAIN;
>   			/*

Is this change necessary?

> @@ -7379,6 +7397,20 @@ static int ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(struct ufs_hba *hba, int tag)
>   			 */
>   			dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: cmd at tag %d not pending in the device.\n",
>   				__func__, tag);
> +			if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> +				/* MCQ mode */
> +				if (lrbp->cmd) {
> +					/* sleep for max. 200us to stabilize */

What is being stabilized here? Please make this comment more clear.

> +					usleep_range(100, 200);
> +					continue;
> +				}
> +				/* command completed already */
> +				dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: cmd at tag=%d is cleared.\n",
> +					__func__, tag);
> +				goto out;
> +			}

Please do not use lrbp->cmd to check whether or not a command has 
completed. See also my patch "scsi: ufs: Fix handling of lrbp->cmd".

> @@ -7415,7 +7447,7 @@ static int ufshcd_try_to_abort_task(struct ufs_hba *hba, int tag)
>   		goto out;
>   	}
>   
> -	err = ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1U << tag);
> +	err = ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1UL << tag);
>   	if (err)
>   		dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: Failed clearing cmd at tag %d, err %d\n",
>   			__func__, tag, err);

Is this change necessary?

> -	if (!(test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs))) {
> +	if (!is_mcq_enabled(hba) && !(test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs))) {

Please leave out one pair of superfluous parentheses from the above 
expression.

Thanks,

Bart.