Re: [PATCH V2] MMC: core: cap MMC card timeouts at 2 seconds.

[Adrian Hunter]

On 01/06/12 13:20, Torne (Richard Coles) wrote:
> On 1 June 2012 11:09, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Oh, sorry; didn't think that through. So, yeah, that'd be 4.29
> seconds, which is still too long for many hosts :)
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> Those would work, but it seems silly to me to suppress the warning
> only for some cards, or to cap the timeout only for some cards. The
> best way to identify a card that has a "broken" timeout value is.. if
> the timeout value is a really big number, no? I am very skeptical that
> there is a card out there anywhere that will actually take more than
> two seconds (or 4.29 seconds, if you prefer) to successfully complete
> a command.
> 
> The warning itself seems to have extremely limited use; there's
> nothing you can do about it other than suppress it (the driver is
> already capping the timeout for you), and because timeouts are
> calculated per-command the warning is absurdly noisy (in fact, the fun
> part on my system was the warning being logged to klogd, being written
> to logfiles on the eMMC, causing more warnings, causing more log
> messages, etc) :) sdhci is the only host driver that complains about
> this; it seems logical for the warning to apply to all hosts, or to
> none of them...

I just noticed that from linux 3.4, the SD write timeout is now 3 seconds
triggering the sdhci driver warning on every write on every SD card.
So change pr_warning to DGB in sdhci_calc_timeout().  Chris?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/