linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/pistachio: Fix wrong calculated clocksource read value

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:49:35 +0800
From:	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
CC:	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/pistachio: Fix wrong calculated
 clocksource read value

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:36:09 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:28:07 +0800 wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:11:25 +0800
> > Jisheng Zhang  wrote:
> >   
> > > Dear Daniel,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:59:30 +0100 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > >     
> > > > On 11/25/2015 04:42 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:      
> > > > > Let's assume the counter value is 0xf000000, the pistachio clocksource    
> > 
> > oops, sorry, should be 0xf0000000. Do I need to send a v2 patch?  
> 
> And in fact, clocksource_mmio_readw_down() also has similar issue, but it masks

oops, sorry, I really need a cup of coffee. I mean clocksource_mmio_readl_down()

> with c->mask before return, the c->mask is less than 32 bit (because the
> clocksource_mmio_init think number of valid bits > 32 or < 16 is invalid.)
> the higher 32 bits are masked off, so we never saw such issue. But we'd better
> to fix that, what's your opinion?
> 
> Thank you very much,
> Jisheng
> 
> >   
> > > > > read cycles function would return 0xffffffff0fffffff, but it should
> > > > > return 0xfffffff.
> > > > >
> > > > > We fix this issue by calculating bitwise-not counter, then cast to
> > > > > cycle_t.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>        
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Jisheng,
> > > > 
> > > > I tried to reproduce this behavior on x86_64 but without success.
> > > > 
> > > > On which architecture did you produce this result ? Do you have a simple 
> > > > test program to check with ?      
> > > 
> > > I have no HW platforms with pistachio, just read the code and run the
> > > following test code in x86_64 and x86_32:
> > > 
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > unsigned long long pistachio_clocksource_read_cycles()
> > > {
> > > 	unsigned int counter = 0xf000000;    
> > 
> > should be unsigned int counter = 0xf0000000;
> >   
> > > 	return ~(unsigned long long)counter;
> > > }
> > > int main()
> > > {
> > > 	printf("%llx\n", pistachio_clocksource_read_cycles());
> > > 	return 0;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jisheng
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel    
> >   
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

--
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/

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