linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 14/15] scsi: ufs: commit descriptors before setting the doorbell

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:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:19:24 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:	Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Dolev Raviv <draviv@...eaurora.org>,
	Gilad Broner <gbroner@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-scsi-owner@...r.kernel.org,
	Jej B <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Santosh Y <santoshsy@...il.com>,
	Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@...eaurora.org>, hch@...radead.org,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jbottomley@...n.com>,
	Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 14/15] scsi: ufs: commit descriptors before setting the doorbell

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:11 AM,  <ygardi@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:36 AM,  <ygardi@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 2015 3:10 PM, "Yaniv Gardi" <ygardi@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Add a write memory barrier to make sure descriptors prepared are
>>>>> actually
>>>>> written to memory before ringing the doorbell. We have also added the
>>>>> write memory barrier after ringing the doorbell register so that
>>>>> controller sees the new request immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 6 ++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>>> index fef0660..876148b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>>> @@ -833,6 +833,8 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>>>>> unsigned int task_tag)
>>>>>         ufshcd_clk_scaling_start_busy(hba);
>>>>>         __set_bit(task_tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs);
>>>>>         ufshcd_writel(hba, 1 << task_tag,
>>>>> REG_UTP_TRANSFER_REQ_DOOR_BELL);
>>>>> +       /* Make sure that doorbell is committed immediately */
>>>>> +       wmb();
>>>>
>>>> Is this really necessary? Is there a measurable difference?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if there is a measurable difference, but as the Door-Bell
>>> register is the one that actually responsible for the HW execution of
>>> the
>>> requests, anyhow, it's recommended to its value will be written
>>> instantly to the memory.
>>
>> A barrier doesn't guarantee speed, only ordering. Unless you can
>> measure the difference, you should not have it.
>
> Rob,
> let me have an example:
> context#1 updates outstanding_reqs variable and write(DOOR_BELL)
> context#2 upon interrupt of a request completion the following happens:
>   report completion on each one of the bits in:
>   outstanding_reqs ^ read(DOOR_BELL);
>
> 0. let's assume the DOOR_BELL = 0x1 (which means 1 active request in slot 0)
> 1. context#1: update the DOOR_BELL to be 0x3; (2 active requests: in slot
> 0 and 1)
> 2. the new value 0x3 is still not written to the DR so DORR_BELL is still
> 0x1, but outstanding_reqs is already updated = 0x3
> 3. the request in slot 0 just completed, and interrupt happens, so
> DORR_BELL is now 0 (request in slot 0 completed)
> 4. context#2: outstanding_reqs ^ read(DOOR_BELL) = 0x3 ^ 0x0 = 0x3 =>
> wrong conclusion since the request in slot 1 never completed, and actually
> never started.

Barriers alone will never solve this problem. They may narrow the
window possibly, but the problem is still there. What you have to have
is a spinlock around all accesses to both outstanding_reqs and
doorbell register. And guess what, spinlocks have appropriate barriers
to ensure visibility of what they protect. Or perhaps the h/w provides
another way to signal what slots have completed. Using the same
register for doorbell and completion status is not ideal.

Rob
--
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/