linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add selective 200ms delay after sending ctrl report

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <94d2e491-4986-5344-c169-c1732c80bdf1@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 29 Jul 2023 06:55:19 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@...il.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jack Doan <me@...kdoan.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add selective 200ms delay
 after sending ctrl report

On 7/29/23 06:42, Aleksa Savic wrote:
> On 2023-07-29 15:31:12 GMT+02:00, Aleksa Savic wrote:
>> Add a 200ms delay after sending a ctrl report to Quadro,
>> Octo, D5 Next and Aquaero to give them enough time to
>> process the request and save the data to memory. Otherwise,
>> under heavier userspace loads where multiple sysfs entries
>> are usually set in quick succession, a new ctrl report could
>> be requested from the device while it's still processing the
>> previous one and fail with -EPIPE.
>>
>> Reported by a user on Github [1] and tested by both of us.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/aleksamagicka/aquacomputer_d5next-hwmon/issues/82
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@...il.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Added missing <linux/delay.h> include
>> ---
> Sorry for the noise, I didn't include the Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> line from v1 in v2. Do I need to resend?
> 

Normally it would be me adding that. Instead, it would make much more
sense to add a Fixes: tag, because otherwise I'll have to spend time
figuring that out. Also, you are not supposed to actually send the patch
to the stable@ mailing list because it hasn't been accepted into the
upstream kernel. It is only necessary to actually send a patch to the
stable@ mailing list if it is a backport.

Either case I'd suggest to consider addressing my feedback before sending
yet another version.

Guenter