linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <0d94544e-59d7-1860-2cc4-1a9130023b2f@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:05:19 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, Jack Doan <me@...kdoan.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add selective 200ms delay
 after sending ctrl report

On 8/10/23 11:15, Aleksa Savic wrote:
> On 2023-08-10 06:09:13 GMT+02:00, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 07:20:03PM +0200, 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. The delay is only applied
>>> if two ctrl report operations are near each other in time.
>>>
>>> Reported by a user on Github [1] and tested by both of us.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/aleksamagicka/aquacomputer_d5next-hwmon/issues/82
>>>
>>> Fixes: 752b927951ea ("hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add support for Aquacomputer Octo")
>>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@...il.com>
>>
>> I would have suggested to use fsleep() to avoid unnecessary
>> sleep times if they are small, bt I guess it doesn't make much
>> of a difference.
> 
> Will keep that in mind.
> 
>>
>> Applied.
> 
> Will this patch perhaps be marked for stable?
> 

It has a Fixes: tag, so it will be applied to affected stable releases
automatically, at least if it applies cleanly. I could have added Cc:
stable@ to make it explicit, but I had pushed it already, and I didn't
want to rebase the branch just for that.

Guenter