linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: fix unexpected CMD

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: <5961191f-f913-9bbf-5d0d-81800bec36a1@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:08:45 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
CC:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.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>,
        LinuxArm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: fix unexpected CMD_SYNC timeout

On 15/08/2018 14:00, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:26:31PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 15/08/18 11:23, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> The condition "(int)(VAL - sync_idx) >= 0" to break loop in function
>>> __arm_smmu_sync_poll_msi requires that sync_idx must be increased
>>> monotonously according to the sequence of the CMDs in the cmdq.
>>>
>>> But ".msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr)" is not protected
>>> by spinlock, so the following scenarios may appear:
>>> cpu0			cpu1
>>> msidata=0
>>> 			msidata=1
>>> 			insert cmd1
>>> insert cmd0
>>> 			smmu execute cmd1
>>> smmu execute cmd0
>>> 			poll timeout, because msidata=1 is overridden by
>>> 			cmd0, that means VAL=0, sync_idx=1.
>>>
>>> This is not a functional problem, just make the caller wait for a long
>>> time until TIMEOUT. It's rare to happen, because any other CMD_SYNCs
>>> during the waiting period will break it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> index 1d64710..3f5c236 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>>
>>>  	int				gerr_irq;
>>>  	int				combined_irq;
>>> -	atomic_t			sync_nr;
>>> +	u32				sync_nr;
>>>
>>>  	unsigned long			ias; /* IPA */
>>>  	unsigned long			oas; /* PA */
>>> @@ -775,6 +775,11 @@ static int queue_remove_raw(struct arm_smmu_queue *q, u64 *ent)
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +static inline void arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(u64 *cmd, u32 msidata)
>>
>> If we *are* going to go down this route then I think it would make sense to
>> move the msiaddr and CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_MSI logic here as well; i.e.
>> arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd() always generates a "normal" SEV-based sync
>> command, then calling this guy would convert it to an MSI-based one. As-is,
>> having bits of mutually-dependent data handled across two separate places
>> just seems too messy and error-prone.
>
> Yeah, but I'd first like to see some number showing that doing all of this
> under the lock actually has an impact.

Update:

I tested this patch versus a modified version which builds the command 
under the queue spinlock (* below). From my testing there is a small 
difference:

Setup:
Testing Single NVME card
fio 15 processes
No process pinning

Average Results:
v3 patch read/r,w/write (IOPS): 301K/149K,149K/307K
Build under lock version read/r,w/write (IOPS): 304K/150K,150K/311K

I don't know why it's better to build under the lock. We can test more.

I suppose there is no justification to build the command outside the 
spinlock based on these results alone...

Cheers,
John

* Modified version:
static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
     u64 cmd[CMDQ_ENT_DWORDS];
     unsigned long flags;
     struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent ent = {
         .opcode = CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC,
         .sync    = {
             .msiaddr = virt_to_phys(&smmu->sync_count),
         },
     };

     spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);
     ent.sync.msidata = ++smmu->sync_nr;
     arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(cmd, &ent);
     arm_smmu_cmdq_insert_cmd(smmu, cmd);
     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);

     return __arm_smmu_sync_poll_msi(smmu, ent.sync.msidata);
}


> Will
>
> .
>