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: <8d239f26e1011eee49b7c678ba07fd4d9ca81d24.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 02:58:05 +0000
From: Peter Wang (王信友) <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
To: "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>,
	"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....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 Tue, 2025-11-11 at 08:37 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hi Bart,

It is not reasonable because the timeout value does not depend
on the host, it depends on the device. It could set a large 
timoeut value for those devices.

By the way, this patch also doesn't change any host timeout 
value if you insist that the timeout value depends on the host.

Using a module parameter is a flexible method if the customer 
is using a device that may require an extended timeout value.
Moreover, this approach would help maintain consistency. 
Otherwise, with so many different timeouts (uic/dev/tm),
it would be quite chaotic if each is handled in a different way.

Thanks
Peter