linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma: add Qualcomm Technologies HIDMA channel driver

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: <4135705.fKCjnZtDgZ@wuerfel>
Date:	Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:43:50 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, timur@...eaurora.org,
	cov@...eaurora.org, jcm@...hat.com,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma: add Qualcomm Technologies HIDMA channel driver

On Tuesday 03 November 2015 00:29:07 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 11/2/2015 3:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Are you using message signaled interrupts then?
> > Typically MSI guarantees
> > ordering against DMA, but level or edge triggered interrupts by definition
> > cannot (at least on PCI, but most other buses are the same way), because
> > the DMA master has no insight into when a DMA is actually complete.
> >
> > If you use MSI, please add a comment to the readl_relaxed() that it
> > is safe because of that, otherwise the next person who tries to debug
> > a problem with your driver has to look into this.
> 
> No, using regular GIC SPI interrupts at this moment. I know that HW 
> doesn't use any of the typical AHB/AXI ARM buses.
> 
> I'm familiar with how PCI endpoints works. While the first read in a 
> typical PCI endpoint ISR flushes all outstanding requests traditionally 
> to the destination, this concept does not apply here for this HW.
> 

Ok, got it.

Best add an explanation like the above in the interrupt handler,
to prevent this from accidentally getting 'cleaned up' to use
readl(), or copied into a driver that uses PCI ordering rules
where it is actually wrong.

I think it should be done like this:

- anything that is not performance critical, use normal readl/writel
- in the fast path, add a comment to each readl_relaxed()/writel_relaxed()
  that is safe in this driver but that would not be safe in a PCI
  device
- For the ones that would be safe on PCI as weel, use
  readl_relaxed()/writel_relaxed() without a comment on each one,
  but clarify somewhere that these are all intentional.

	Arnd
--
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/