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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170614110603.GM16190@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:06:03 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, dikshit.n@...wei.com,
        anurupvasu@...il.com, gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com,
        huangdaode@...ilicon.com, shyju.pv@...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 11:48:07AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux 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
> 
> I think the delay is to counter this:
> 
> 	Agent 1			Agent 2
> 	read flag
> 	not locked
> 				read flag
> 				not locked
> 	write unique ID
> 	read back
> 	not locked by someone else
> 				write unique ID
> 				read back
> 				not locked by someone else
> 
> With the delay present, this becomes:
> 
> 	Agent 1			Agent 2
> 	read flag
> 	not locked
> 				read flag
> 				not locked
> 	write unique ID
> 	delay
> 				write unique ID
> 				delay
> 	read back
> 	locked by agent 2
> 				read back
> 				not locked by someone else
> 
> For this to work, the delay has to be guaranteed to be greater than
> the maximum duration that any agent takes between the initial read
> and the write of its unique ID.  The delay doesn't even have to be
> identical between each agent, it just has to satisfy that condition.

I think that it also needs to account for write propagation delays.

> The key thing though is that the reads and writes must happen when
> the program intends them to, so I don't think the _relaxed variants
> should be used here.  If they're buffered, then the delay doesn't
> have the desired effect.

If buffering is a concern, then I think the non-relaxed write has the
barrier on the wrong side, so relaxed + mb() would be better.

Will