linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 6/9] drivers: perf: hisi: Add support for Hisilicon Djtag 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170614105057.GA7236@leverpostej>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:50:58 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     dikshit.n@...wei.com, shyju.pv@...wei.com, anurupvasu@...il.com,
        gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com, huangdaode@...ilicon.com,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xuwei5@...ilicon.com,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        sanil.kumar@...ilicon.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        shiju.jose@...wei.com, tanxiaojun@...wei.com, anurup.m@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/9] drivers: perf: hisi: Add support for Hisilicon
 Djtag driver

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:42:30AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:06:58AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Apologies, I misunderstood your algorithm (I thought step (a) was on one CPU
> > and step (b) was on another). Still, I don't understand the need for the
> > timeout. If you instead read back the flag immediately, wouldn't it still
> > work? e.g.
> >
> >
> > lock:
> >   Readl_relaxed flag
> >   if (locked)
> >     goto lock;
> >
> >   Writel_relaxed unique ID to flag
> >   Readl flag
> >   if (locked by somebody else)
> >     goto lock;
> >
> > <critical section>
> >
> > unlock:
> >   Writel unlocked value to flag
> >
> >
> > Given that we're dealing with iomem, I think it will work, but I could be
> > missing something obvious.
> 
> Don't we have the race below where both threads can enter the critical
> section?
> 
>         // flag f initial zero (unlocked)
> 
>         // t1, flag 1                   // t2, flag 2
>         readl(f); // reads 0            l = readl(f); // reads 0
> 
>         <thinks lock is free>           <thinks lock is free>
> 
>         writel(1, f);
>         readl(f); // reads 1
>         <thinks lock owned>
>                                         writel(2, f);
>                                         readl(f) // reads 2
>                                         <thinks lock owned>
> 
>         <crticial section>              <critical section>
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
> the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or
> copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

Please ignore the disclaimer on this mail; my client was mis-configured.

I will ensure I avoid sending bogus disclaimers in future.

Thanks,
Mark.