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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:28:41 -0600 From: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org> To: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org> Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: clear BAM interrupt only if it is rised On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: > Currently we write BAM_IRQ_CLR register with zero even when no > BAM_IRQ occured. This write has some bad side effects when the > BAM instance is for the crypto engine. In case of crypto engine > some of the BAM registers are xPU protected and they cannot be > controlled by the driver. > > Signed-off-by: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org> > --- > drivers/dma/qcom_bam_dma.c | 12 ++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom_bam_dma.c b/drivers/dma/qcom_bam_dma.c > index dc9da477eb69..0f06f3b7a72b 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/qcom_bam_dma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom_bam_dma.c > @@ -800,13 +800,17 @@ static irqreturn_t bam_dma_irq(int irq, void *data) > if (srcs & P_IRQ) > tasklet_schedule(&bdev->task); > > - if (srcs & BAM_IRQ) > + if (srcs & BAM_IRQ) { > clr_mask = readl_relaxed(bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_STTS)); > > - /* don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM registers */ > - mb(); > + /* > + * don't allow reorder of the various accesses to the BAM > + * registers > + */ > + mb(); > > - writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR)); > + writel_relaxed(clr_mask, bam_addr(bdev, 0, BAM_IRQ_CLR)); > + } Looks good. We shouldn't be accessing this unless there is actually an irq shown in the srcs. Thanks for catching this. Reviewed-by: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org> -- 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