linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Reduce the sleep before vcc can be powered on

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: <4943d9d6e31b2993ee0563722b8bc38c3b1ef069.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 03:11:03 +0000
From: Peter Wang (王信友) <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
To: "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>, "quic_cang@...cinc.com"
	<quic_cang@...cinc.com>, "quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com"
	<quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>, "quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com"
	<quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>, "manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org"
	<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>, "bvanassche@....org"
	<bvanassche@....org>, "adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>, "alim.akhtar@...sung.com"
	<alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, "James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com"
	<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Reduce the sleep before vcc can
 be powered on

On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 12:00 -0700, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> I have discussed with the major ufs vendors (Samsung, Kioxia, Micron,
> and SK Hynix) via emails. They are all in agreement that 2ms is good.
> I
> did check the current device's datasheets and 1ms is what their
> specifications require. I admit that I may have missed some very old
> ufs
> device's datasheets. However, I take the words of the ufs vendor's
> engineering teams and the current device's datasheets that the 2ms is
> good for their devices and try to improve the potentially
> conservative
> 5ms delay parameter.
> 
> Thanks, Bao
> 
> 
> 

Hi Bao,

Yes, I am concerned that legacy UFS devices may encounter errors
when upgrading the kernel if the delay is not sufficient.

Furthermore, the vendor claims that 2ms is sufficient. Is this
based on a typical scenario? or should we be concerned about 
the worst-case scenario? I am also worried that the worst-case
delay may not be enough.

Thanks
Peter