[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] hwmon: (applesmc) fix UB and udelay overflow
On 10/2/19 2:43 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:01 PM Guenter Roeck <> wrote:
>> Again, I fail to understand why waiting for a multiple of 20 seconds
>> under any circumstances would make any sense. Maybe the idea was
>> to divide us by 1000 before entering the second loop ?
> Yes, that's very clearly a mistake of mine.
>> Looking into the code, there is no need to use udelay() in the first
>> place. It should be possible to replace the longer waits with
>> usleep_range(). Something like
>> if (us < some_low_value) // eg. 0x80
>> delay(us)
> Did you mean udelay here?

>> else
>> usleep_range(us, us * 2);
>> should do, and at the same time prevent the system from turning
>> into a space heater.
> The issue would persist with the above if udelay remains in a loop
> that gets fully unrolled. That's while I "peel" the loop into two
> loops over different ranges with different bodies.

Sorry, you lost me. If calls to udelay() with even small delay
parameters for some compiler-related reason no longer work, trying
to fix the problem with some odd driver code is most definitely not
a real solution.

> I think I should iterate in the first loop until the number of `us` is
> greater than 1000 (us per ms)(which is less of a magical constant and
> doesn't expose internal implementation details of udelay), then start
> the second loop (dividing us by 1000). What do you think, Guenter?

We should have no second loop, period.

Again, a hot delay loop of 128 ms (actually, more like 245 ms,
adding all delays together) is clearly wrong. Those udelay() calls
in the driver should really be replaced with usleep_range().


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-03 03:18    [W:0.050 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site