linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] platform/x86: intel_scu

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: <CAE-0n51phfrK2iMSisCb2zz+ETWx9nZ+zZ4ZS+3sPx8r3B+0RA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:55:28 -0500
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Timeout fixes

Quoting Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan (2023-08-30 20:28:57)
>
>
> On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > I recently looked at some crash reports on ChromeOS devices that call
> > into this intel_scu_ipc driver. They were hitting timeouts, and it
> > certainly looks possible for those timeouts to be triggering because of
> > scheduling issues. Once things started going south, the timeouts kept
>
> Are you talking about timeouts during IPC command?

Yes? I see messages like this

	intel_scu_ipc intel_scu_ipc: IPC command 0x200a7 failed with -110

which led me to this driver and I wrote these patches based on that
failure message. I was trying to figure out how that could happen, and
it seems that it could simply be scheduling delays while nothing is
really timing out.

>
> > coming. Maybe that's because the other side got seriously confused? I
> > don't know. I'll poke at it some more by injecting timeouts on the
> > kernel side.
>
> Do you think it is possible due to a firmware issue?

I have no idea. Is there some way to figure that out? I'm not able to
reproduce the problem locally.