linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/microcode/intel: Support mailbox transfer

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: <6e784457-7696-4b14-8a2c-433f15da3a93@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 07:11:08 -0700
From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<colinmitchell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/microcode/intel: Support mailbox transfer

On 3/26/2025 8:32 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
> 
> and in send_data_chunk(), do:
> 
> 	staging.state = wait_for_transaction();
> 	return staging.state != UCODE_OK;
> 
> It is simpler and requires less code. Even better, send_data_chunk() can just
> propagate the ucode_state to its caller.

Thanks for the suggestion. To me, this is more of a stylistic choice. 
Previously, the call site had a single line:

     return wait_for_transaction();

> By the way, checkpatch.pl warns that 'msleep < 20ms can sleep for up to 20ms;
> see function description of msleep().' This makes me wonder how the 10ms
> timeout was determined but not precisely enforced. Is it arbitrary or selected
> for specific reasons?

Yes, I saw that warning. It notes that msleep(1) could sleep for longer 
than 1 ms, which I thought was acceptable. The 10 ms timeout was 
determined through discussions with the firmware team responsible for 
staging.

Thanks,
Chang