linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override

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: <20071230152835.GX16946@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:28:35 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>, dpreed@...d.com,
	Islam Amer <pharon@...il.com>, hpa@...or.com,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override

* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> For modern systems we should just use tsc delays, but we have to fix 
> all the drivers first as right now 0x80 causes posting and we have 
> some PCI users (I think probably all bogus), and we need to fix the 
> tons of locking errors that are mostly covered by the inb 0x80 being 
> an indivisible operation so not getting split by interrupts/SMP.

i dont get your last point. Firstly, we do an "outb $0x80" not an inb. 
Secondly, outb $0x80 has no PCI posting side-effects AFAICS. Thirdly, 
even assuming that it has PCI posting side-effects, how can any locking 
error be covered up by an outb 0x80 sticking together with the inb it 
does before it? The sequence we emit is:

  inbb $some_port
  outb $0x80

and i see that the likelyhood of getting such sequences from two CPUs 
'mixed up' are low, but how can this have any smp locking side-effects? 
How can this provide any workaround/coverup?

> I've been going through the drivers that use it - the biggest mess 
> appears to be in the watchdog drivers all of which copied an original 
> lack of locking from the mid 1990s caused by umm.. me. I guess my past 
> is catching up with me ;)

heh :-)

> The X server also appears to touch 0x80 in some cases but we can hope 
> only on ancient hardware.

do you have any memories about the outb_p() use of misc_32.c:

        pos = (x + cols * y) * 2;       /* Update cursor position */
        outb_p(14, vidport);
        outb_p(0xff & (pos >> 9), vidport+1);
        outb_p(15, vidport);
        outb_p(0xff & (pos >> 1), vidport+1);

was this ever needed? This is so early in the bootup that can we cannot 
do any sensible delay. Perhaps we could try a natural delay sequence via 
inb from 0x3cc:

        outb(14, vidport);
         inb(0x3cc); /* delay */
        outb(0xff & (pos >> 9), vidport+1);
         inb(0x3cc); /* delay */
        outb(15, vidport);
         inb(0x3cc); /* delay */
        outb(0xff & (pos >> 1), vidport+1);
         inb(0x3cc); /* delay */

as a dummy delay (totally untested).

Reading from the 0x3cc port does not impact the cursor position update 
sequence IIRC - i think the vidport is even ignored for the input 
direction by most hardware, there's a separate input register. The 0x3cc 
port is a well-defined VGA register which should be unused on non-VGA 
hardware. (which makes it a perfect delay register in any case)

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