linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 Resent 6/6] i3c: master: svc: fix random hot join failure since timeout error

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: <20231020163525.66485920@xps-13>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:35:25 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
Cc:     alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, conor.culhane@...vaco.com,
        imx@...ts.linux.dev, joe@...ches.com,
        linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 Resent 6/6] i3c: master: svc: fix random hot join
 failure since timeout error

Hi Frank,

Frank.li@....com wrote on Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:18:55 -0400:

> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:06:45PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> > 
> > Frank.li@....com wrote on Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:39:42 -0400:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:44:52AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:  
> > > > Hi Frank,
> > > > 
> > > > Frank.Li@....com wrote on Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:59:26 -0400:
> > > >     
> > > > > master side report:
> > > > >   silvaco-i3c-master 44330000.i3c-master: Error condition: MSTATUS 0x020090c7, MERRWARN 0x00100000
> > > > > 
> > > > > BIT 20: TIMEOUT error
> > > > >   The module has stalled too long in a frame. This happens when:
> > > > >   - The TX FIFO or RX FIFO is not handled and the bus is stuck in the
> > > > > middle of a message,
> > > > >   - No STOP was issued and between messages,
> > > > >   - IBI manual is used and no decision was made.    
> > > > 
> > > > I am still not convinced this should be ignored in all cases.
> > > > 
> > > > Case 1 is a problem because the hardware failed somehow.    
> > > 
> > > But so far, no action to handle this case in current code.  
> > 
> > Yes, but if you detect an issue and ignore it, it's not better than
> > reporting it without handling it. Instead of totally ignoring this I
> > would at least write a debug message (identical to what's below) before
> > returning false, even though I am not convinced unconditionally
> > returning false here is wise. If you fail a hardware sequence because
> > you added a printk, it's a problem. Maybe you consider this line as
> > noise, but I believe it's still an error condition. Maybe, however,
> > this bit gets set after the whole sequence, and this is just a "bus
> > is idle" condition. If that's the case, then you need some
> > additional heuristics to properly ignore the bit?
> >   
> 
>                 dev_err(master->dev,                                       
>                         "Error condition: MSTATUS 0x%08x, MERRWARN 0x%08x\n",
>                         mstatus, merrwarn);
> +
> +		/* ignore timeout error */
> +		if (merrwarn & SVC_I3C_MERRWARN_TIMEOUT)
> +			return false;
> +
> 
> Is it okay move SVC_I3C_MERRWARN_TIMEOUT after dev_err?

I think you mentioned earlier that the problem was not the printk but
the return value. So perhaps there is a way to know if the timeout
happened after a transaction and was legitimate or not?

In any case we should probably lower the log level for this error.

Thanks,
Miquèl