linux-kernel - Re: Rampant ext3/4 corruption on 2.6.34-rc7 with VIVT ARM (Marvell 88f5182)

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]

Date:	Wed, 12 May 2010 18:41:48 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...vell.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Saeed Bishara <saeed@...vell.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Rampant ext3/4 corruption on 2.6.34-rc7 with VIVT ARM (Marvell
 88f5182)

On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 08:47 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 23:21 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> > > There was a memory write barrier missing before the DMA descriptors 
> > > are handed over to DMA controller.
> > 
> > On that note, are the cache flush functions implicit memory barriers?

Not exactly ... they *should* be stream ordered with respect to accesses
to the memory they're flushing (which isn't the same thing, and no-one
ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of chip designers, but if a
flush instruction needs explicit ordering, I'd expect that to be built
into the arch layer).

> (Adding Fujita on CC)
> 
> That's a very good question. The generic inline implementation of
> dma_sync_* is:
> 
> static inline void dma_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr,
> 					   size_t size,
> 					   enum dma_data_direction dir)
> {
> 	struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
> 
> 	BUG_ON(!valid_dma_direction(dir));
> 	if (ops->sync_single_for_cpu)
> 		ops->sync_single_for_cpu(dev, addr, size, dir);
> 	debug_dma_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, addr, size, dir);
> }
> 
> Which means that for coherent architectures that do not implement
> the ops->sync_* hooks, we are probably missing a barrier here... 
> 
> Thus if the above is expected to be a memory barrier, it's broken on
> cache coherent powerpc for example. On non-coherent powerpc, we do cache
> flushes and those are implicit barriers.

Can you explain this a little more.  On a cache coherent machine, the
sync is a nop ... why would you want a nop to be any type of barrier?

James


--
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/