linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v9] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: Move host command to prepare/complete

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: <ZGbXFtrBzbaD9rQs@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2023 09:55:34 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To:     Tim Van Patten <timvp@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, robbarnes@...gle.com,
        lalithkraj@...gle.com, rrangel@...omium.org,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, Garrick Evans <garrick@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v9] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: Move host command to
 prepare/complete

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:47:23AM -0600, Tim Van Patten wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 7:38 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:56:59AM -0600, Tim Van Patten wrote:
> > > The issue is that we need the EC aware of the AP being in the process
> > > of suspend/resume from start to finish, so we can accurately
> > > determine:
> > > - How long the process took to better gauge we're meeting ChromeOS requirements.
> > > - When the AP failed to complete the process, so we can collect data
> > > and perform error recovery.
[...]
> > How could the *error* recovery do?
> 
> I don't understand what this is asking.

Given that you said "we can collect data and perform error recovery" if the
suspend-resume takes more/less time than expected.  I'm trying to understand
what does "error recovery" mean.  What recovery it could take?

> > > > What about other interfaces (i2c, spi, uart)?  Do they also need to change
> > > the callbacks?
> > >
> > > We aren't concerned about those devices, because they aren't being
> > > used on the devices we're seeing issues with. If devices using those
> > > ECs want this change, they can pick it up as well, but we don't have
> > > any way to test changes on those devices (whatever they may be).
> >
> > This doesn't sound good.  As I would suppose you are adding some new EC FW
> > features regarding to EC_CMD_HOST_SLEEP_EVENT, you should consider the
> > existing systems too.
> 
> Again, why are you assuming there is new EC FW for this? This is only
> changing when an already-existing host command is being sent. Nothing
> is being added or removed.

I see.  There is no EC changes.

Specifically, do you see any crashes, or premature events, or mal-functions
regarding to the measurement is not that accurate?

Also, we wouldn't want it to be LPC-specialized.  Please consider other
interfaces.