linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UFS: Make TM command timeout configurable from host side

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: <be4dc430-ce62-46a8-bd42-16eb0c23c0a0@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:37:19 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Peter Wang (王信友) <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
 "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
 "sh043.lee@...sung.com" <sh043.lee@...sung.com>,
 "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
 "storage.sec@...sung.com" <storage.sec@...sung.com>,
 "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 "adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UFS: Make TM command timeout configurable from host side

On 11/11/25 1:03 AM, Peter Wang (王信友) wrote:
> It seems that there is no node in the DTS to describe the
> UFS device. The UFS host node is not suitable, because the
> timeout value depends on the UFS device itself.
> 
> Since you found that some devices may have TM command
> times exceeding 100ms, why not add a device quirk and change
> the timeout value only for those devices?
> 
> Alternatively, you could consider using a module parameter,
> similar to uic_cmd_timeout and dev_cmd_timeout.

Why a quirk? A quirk will select a single specific timeout. The approach
of this patch lets the host driver set the timeout. This seems more
flexible to me than introducing a new quirk. Additionally, I think this
is a better solution than a new kernel module parameter.

Thanks,

Bart.