linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] pata_parport: add custom version of wait_after

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: <d2fd9a3c-3efd-dbfe-7b2a-dc36989b8379@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 09:55:01 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
To:     Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Tim Waugh <tim@...erelk.net>,
        linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pata_parport: add custom version of wait_after_reset

On 10/1/23 04:15, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> Some parallel adapters (e.g. EXP Computer MC-1285B EPP Cable) return
> bogus values when there's no master device present. This can cause
> reset to fail, preventing the lone slave device (such as EXP Computer
> CD-865) from working.
> 
> Add custom version of wait_after_reset that ignores master failure when
> a slave device is present. The custom version is also needed because
> the generic ata_sff_wait_after_reset uses direct port I/O for slave
> device detection.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>
> ---
>  drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c
> index cf87bbb52f1f..b3db953e615a 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,69 @@ static bool pata_parport_devchk(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int device)
>  	return (nsect == 0x55) && (lbal == 0xaa);
>  }
>  
> +static int pata_parport_wait_after_reset(struct ata_link *link,
> +					 unsigned int devmask,
> +					 unsigned long deadline)
> +{
> +	struct ata_port *ap = link->ap;
> +	struct pi_adapter *pi = ap->host->private_data;
> +	unsigned int dev0 = devmask & (1 << 0);
> +	unsigned int dev1 = devmask & (1 << 1);
> +	int rc, ret = 0;
> +
> +	ata_msleep(ap, ATA_WAIT_AFTER_RESET);
> +
> +	/* always check readiness of the master device */
> +	rc = ata_sff_wait_ready(link, deadline);
> +	/* some adapters return bogus values if master device is not present,
> +	 * so don't abort now if a slave device is present
> +	 */

In addition to Sergey's comment, please move this comment inside the "if", or
even better, merge it with the otherwise not very useful "always check
readiness..." comment.

> +	if (rc) {
> +		if (!dev1)
> +			return rc;
> +		ret = -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* if device 1 was found in ata_devchk, wait for register
> +	 * access briefly, then wait for BSY to clear.
> +	 */
> +	if (dev1) {
> +		int i;
> +
> +		pata_parport_dev_select(ap, 1);
> +
> +		/* Wait for register access.  Some ATAPI devices fail
> +		 * to set nsect/lbal after reset, so don't waste too
> +		 * much time on it.  We're gonna wait for !BSY anyway.
> +		 */
> +		for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> +			u8 nsect, lbal;
> +
> +			nsect = pi->proto->read_regr(pi, 0, ATA_REG_NSECT);
> +			lbal = pi->proto->read_regr(pi, 0, ATA_REG_LBAL);
> +			if ((nsect == 1) && (lbal == 1))
> +				break;
> +			ata_msleep(ap, 50);	/* give drive a breather */

Please move the comment on its own line above the sleep call.

> +		}
> +
> +		rc = ata_sff_wait_ready(link, deadline);
> +		if (rc) {
> +			if (rc != -ENODEV)
> +				return rc;
> +			ret = rc;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* is all this really necessary? */

I don't know. It is your driver... So either drop this comment, or clearly
explain why this is done.

> +	pata_parport_dev_select(ap, 0);
> +	if (dev1)
> +		pata_parport_dev_select(ap, 1);
> +	if (dev0)
> +		pata_parport_dev_select(ap, 0);

Can you have dev1 && dev0 == true ? This seems like the second if should be an
"else if", but it is not clear what this is doing.

> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  static int pata_parport_bus_softreset(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int devmask,
>  				      unsigned long deadline)
>  {
> @@ -94,7 +157,7 @@ static int pata_parport_bus_softreset(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int devmask,
>  	ap->last_ctl = ap->ctl;
>  
>  	/* wait the port to become ready */
> -	return ata_sff_wait_after_reset(&ap->link, devmask, deadline);
> +	return pata_parport_wait_after_reset(&ap->link, devmask, deadline);
>  }
>  
>  static int pata_parport_softreset(struct ata_link *link, unsigned int *classes,

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research