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  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:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:01:38 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@...sung.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Riley <davidriley@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clocksource: exynos-mct: Register the timer for stable udelay

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com> wrote:
>> +static struct delay_timer exynos4_delay_timer;
>> +
>> +static unsigned long exynos4_read_current_timer(void)

Note: I think this should return a cycles_t, not an unsigned long.
They're the same (right now), but probably shouldn't be (see below).


>> +{
>> +#ifdef ARM
>> +     return __raw_readl(reg_base + EXYNOS4_MCT_G_CNT_L);
>> +#else /* ARM64, etc */
>> +     return exynos4_frc_read(&mct_frc);
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>
> No need for anything like this. Even if running on ARM64, the delay
> timer code should be able to cope with different timer widths. For
> delays, 32 bits are enough, so just always read the lower part.

I agree that the timer code should cope but it doesn't appear to.  I see:

  cycles_t start = get_cycles();
  while ((get_cycles() - start) < cycles)
    cpu_relax();

Right now cycles_t is defined as "unsigned long".  If that's 64-bits
on ARM64 then this function will have problems with wraparound.

My personal vote would be to submit a patch to change "cycles_t" to
always be 32-bits.  Given that 32-bits was fine for udelay() for ARM
that seems sane and simple.  If someone later comes up with a super
compelling reason why we need 64-bit timers for udelay (really??) then
they can later add all the complexity needed.

Amit: can you code up such a patch and add it to the series?  I know
it changes code that touches all ARM devices but I still think it's
the right thing to do and actually only really changes behavior on
ARM64.


> Also use of raw accessors in drivers is discouraged - please use
> readl_relaxed().

It doesn't seem like that should happen in the same patch.  Perhaps
Amit can do a cleanup patch first that changes all instances of
__raw_readl / __raw_writel in this file, then submit his patch atop
that.


> Btw. I don't even see support for this on ARM64 in mainline, where arch
> timer is always used for delays and AFAIK this is a platform requirement.

Yeah, I'd vote for not using MCT on ARM64, but it I suppose it doesn't
hurt to keep it working.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists