On 01/06/12 12:32, Torne (Richard Coles) wrote: > On 1 June 2012 10:31, Torne (Richard Coles) <torne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 1 June 2012 09:35, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 29/05/12 05:32, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 18:31 +0100, Torne (Richard Coles) wrote: >>>>> From: "Torne (Richard Coles)" <torne@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> MMC CSD info can specify very large, ridiculous timeouts, big enough to >>>>> overflow timeout_ns on 32-bit machines. This can result in the card >>>>> timing out on every operation because the wrapped timeout value is far >>>>> too small. >>>>> >>>>> Fix the overflow by capping the result at 2 seconds. Cards specifying >>>>> longer timeouts are almost certainly insane, and host controllers >>>>> generally cannot support timeouts that long in any case. >>>>> >>>>> 2 seconds should be plenty of time for any card to actually function; >>>>> the timeout calculation code is already using 1 second as a "worst case" >>>>> timeout for cards running in SPI mode. >>>> >>>> Needs a 'Signed-off-by'. >>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 11 ++++++++++- >>>>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >>>>> index 0b6141d..3b4a9fc 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >>>>> @@ -512,7 +512,16 @@ void mmc_set_data_timeout(struct mmc_data *data, const struct mmc_card *card) >>>>> if (data->flags & MMC_DATA_WRITE) >>>>> mult <<= card->csd.r2w_factor; >>>>> >>>>> - data->timeout_ns = card->csd.tacc_ns * mult; >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * The timeout in nanoseconds may overflow with some cards. Cap it at >>>>> + * two seconds both to avoid the overflow and also because host >>>>> + * controllers cannot generally generate timeouts that long anyway. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + if (card->csd.tacc_ns <= (2 * NSEC_PER_SEC) / mult) >>>>> + data->timeout_ns = card->csd.tacc_ns * mult; >>>>> + else >>>>> + data->timeout_ns = 2 * NSEC_PER_SEC; >>>> >>>> We clearly need to guard against overflow here, and this is the correct >>>> way to clamp the multiplication. I can't speak as to whether 2 seconds >>>> is the right limit. >>> >>> The host controllers I have looked at have a limit of around 2.5 seconds. >>> >>> But why not just use the size of the type as the limit? e.g. >>> >>> if (card->csd.tacc_ns <= UINT_MAX / mult) >>> data->timeout_ns = card->csd.tacc_ns * mult; >>> else >>> data->timeout_ns = UINT_MAX; >> >> The host controller drivers don't seem to all do a very good job of >> preventing further overflows or handling large values correctly >> (though some do). sdhci takes the especially annoying additional step >> of printk'ing a warning for *every single MMC command* where >> data->timeout_ns is larger than the controller can accommodate. >> Capping it to a value with a sensible order of magnitude seems to make >> it more likely that cards with obviously bogus CSD parameters will >> actually work. I don't object to using a larger number for the limit, >> but UINT_MAX on a 64-bit system obviously doesn't limit this at all >> and will leave you with timeouts up to 17 minutes, which seems >> ridiculous :) > > Er, not 17 minutes; 102.4 seconds as I used later in my mail. SD cards > have their timeouts capped already, so their larger 100x multiplier is > not a problem; 102.4 seconds is the longest for an MMC card. > Linux is LP64. i.e. "int" is always 32-bit in the kernel >> My original motivation for this patch is that I have a device with an >> eMMC that specifies a 25.5 second timeout, attached to a sdhci host >> whose maximum timeout is 2.8 seconds. Originally I proposed a patch to >> just remove the warning in sdhci, but nobody replied, and when I >> realised there was actually an overflow happening I opted to fix that >> instead. >> >> So, yeah, we could use UINT_MAX, but then at minimum I also need to >> kill the warning in sdhci to make my device work, and probably all the >> host controller drivers need to be checked to make sure they don't use >> timeout_ns in a way that can overflow. >> >> I've also just noticed that struct mmc_data's comment for timeout_ns >> says /* data timeout (in ns, max 80ms) */ which is not true (the max >> is 102.4 seconds if my math is correct), which may have contributed to >> the host drivers not being too careful :) >> >> What do you think? If you can identify the card, the you could make a new quirk in a fashion similar to mmc_card_long_read_time(). Alternatively you could make use of SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_TIMEOUT_VAL or introduce your own sdhci quirk to suppress the warning. >> >>>> >>>> Ben. >>>> >>>>> data->timeout_clks = card->csd.tacc_clks * mult; >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Torne (Richard Coles) >> torne@xxxxxxxxxx > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
