netdev - Re: [PATCH] ath10k: transmit queued frames after waking queues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 16:21:01 +0200
From:   Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
To:     Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>
Cc:     Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: transmit queued frames after waking queues

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 08:50:23AM -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:36:56PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > A spin lock does have the advantage of ordering: memory operations issued
> > before the spin_unlock_bh() will be completed before the spin_unlock_bh()
> > operation has completed.
> > 
> > However, ath10k_htt_tx_dec_pending() was called earlier in the same function,
> > which decreases htt->num_pending_tx, so that write will be completed before
> > our read. That is the only ordering we care about here (if we should call
> > ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending() or not).
> 
> Sure.  I also understand that reading inside a lock and operating on the
> value outside the lock isn't really the definition of synchronization
> (doesn't really matter in this case though).
> 
> I was just suggesting that the implicit memory barrier in the spin unlock
> that we are already paying for would be sufficient here too, and it matches
> the semantic of "tx fields under tx_lock."  On the other hand, maybe it's
> just me, but I tend to look askance at just-in-case READ_ONCEs sprinkled
> about.

I agree, because of the implicit memory barrier from spin_unlock_bh(),
READ_ONCE shouldn't really be needed in this case.

I think that it's a good thing to be critical of all "just-in-case" things,
however, it's not always that obvious if you actually need READ_ONCE or not.

E.g. you might need to use it even when you are holding a spin_lock.

Some people recommend to use it for all concurrent non-read-only shared memory
accesses: https://github.com/google/ktsan/wiki/READ_ONCE-and-WRITE_ONCE

Is there a better guideline somewhere..?


Kind regards,
Niklas