linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off

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, 26 Aug 2015 11:37:17 +0200
From:	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	<sboyd@...eaurora.org>, <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	<geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and
 implement hand-off



On 08/26/2015 11:09 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>> On 08/26/2015 08:54 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michael Turquette wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe I am the one missing something? My goal was to allow the consumer
>>>> driver to gate the critical clock. So we need clk_disable_unused to
>>>> actually disable the clock for that to work.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are suggesting that clk_disable_unused should *not* disable
>>>> the clock if it is critical. Can you confirm that?
>>> My take is that a critical clock should only be disabled when a
>>> knowledgeable driver wants to gate it for a specific purpose [probably
>>> using clk_disable()].  Once the aforementioned driver no longer has a
>>> use for the clock [whether that happens with clk_unprepare_disable()
>>> or clk_put() ...] the clock should be ungated and be provided with
>>> critical status once more.
>>>
>> How do you differentiate between a knowledgeable and
>> non-knowledgeable driver?
>> Let's take the example of the clock used by the i2c on STi SoCs.
>> This clock is used by i2c, and is also critical to the system, but
>> only i2c takes it.
>>
>> At first transfer, the i2c will enable the clock and then disables it.
>>
>> What we would expect here is that the clk_disable does not gate the
>> clock, even if only user since the hand-off flag has been set.
>> Else, system will freeze.
> The I2C driver in this instance is not a knowledgeable driver and
> should not be taking a reference to a critical clock.
This is the case:
         i2c@...0000 {
             ...
             clocks = <&clk_s_c0_flexgen CLK_EXT2F_A9>;
             clock-names = "ssc";
             ...
         }

CLK_EXT2F_A9 is a critical clock I think.
Indeed, this clock corresponds to output 13 of clockgen c0.
This ouput has several clock names in the datasheet, but is in reality 
the same clock from HW point of view (i.e. "same wire"):

- CLK_ICN_REG
- CLK_TRACE_A9
- CLK_PTI_STM
- CLK_EXT2F_A9

I'm pretty sure CLK_ICN_REG is a critical clock.

Try to gate it without gating its parent, and see if system is still alive.


>
> In the example you provide, the real issue is that the I2C driver uses
> one of the critical clock's siblings.  Without this framework, if it
> gives up the reference to its own clock and there are no users of any
> sibling clocks, the parent is gated.  This has the unfortunate effect
> of gating the entire family, critical clock included.
I don't see why a clock used by i2c could not be a critical clock, if it 
is used by other parts of the system that cannot be represented as 
drivers, and rely on the clock to be always on.




--
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/