linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: replace writel with writel_relaxed in queue_inc

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: <59510C20.6000300@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:29:04 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
        Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: replace writel with writel_relaxed
 in queue_inc_prod



On 2017/6/21 17:08, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:28:23AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2017/6/20 19:35, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 20/06/17 12:04, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> This function is protected by spinlock, and the latter will do memory
>>>> barrier implicitly. So that we can safely use writel_relaxed. In fact, the
>>>> dmb operation will lengthen the time protected by lock, which indirectly
>>>> increase the locking confliction in the stress scene.
>>>
>>> If you remove the DSB between writing the commands (to Normal memory)
>>> and writing the pointer (to Device memory), how can you guarantee that
>>> the complete command is visible to the SMMU and it isn't going to try to
>>> consume stale memory contents? The spinlock is irrelevant since it's
>>> taken *before* the command is written.
>> OK, I see, thanks. Let's me see if there are any other methods. And I think
>> that this may should be done well by hardware.
> 
> FWIW, I did use the _relaxed variants wherever I could when I wrote the
> driver. There might, of course, be bugs, but it's not like the normal case
> for drivers where the author didn't consider the _relaxed accessors
> initially.
A good news. I got a new idea and I will post v2 later.

> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Thanks!
BestRegards