linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: arcmsr: Fix suspend/resume of ACB_ADAPTER_TYPE

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: <20190117091646.GA11828@kadam>
Date:   Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:16:46 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Ching Huang <ching2048@...ca.com.tw>
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hch@...radead.org, colin.king@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: arcmsr: Fix suspend/resume of
 ACB_ADAPTER_TYPE_B part 2

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 04:47:07PM +0800, Ching Huang wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 10:59 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:45:03AM +0800, Ching Huang wrote:
> > > >From Ching Huang <ching2048@...ca.com.tw>
> > > 
> > > Fix suspend/resume of ACB_ADAPTER_TYPE_B part 2.
> > > 
> > 
> > What does this look like from a user perspective?  Does it fail every
> > time or does it only fail sometimes?
> > 
> > What's the bug exactly?
> > 
> > There is no Fixes tag...
> >From user's perspective, hibernate/resume are OK.
> But following IO may cause 'isr get an illegal ccb command' in
> log/messages sometime.
> > 


You will need to resend with that information included in the commit
message.

> > > Signed-off-by: Ching Huang <ching2048@...ca.com.tw>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h b/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h
> > > index a94c513..b98c632 100755
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/arcmsr/arcmsr.h
> > > @@ -508,9 +508,9 @@ struct MessageUnit_A
> > >  struct MessageUnit_B
> > >  {
> > >  	uint32_t	post_qbuffer[ARCMSR_MAX_HBB_POSTQUEUE];
> > > -	uint32_t	done_qbuffer[ARCMSR_MAX_HBB_POSTQUEUE];
> > > +	volatile uint32_t	done_qbuffer[ARCMSR_MAX_HBB_POSTQUEUE];
> > 
> > There is a well known rule of thumb that when someone uses "volatile"
> > in the kernel it means there is a locking problem...  Is this __iomem or
> > something?
> The done_qbuffer was a command completion queue, it was an area written
> by IO processor and read by device driver. So, ...

I'm not totally positive I understand this sentence.  I can find a bunch
of places which read from this buffer, but I haven't immediately found
which place writes to it.  Can you give me a function name that I should
read?

> > 
> > >  	uint32_t	postq_index;
> > > -	uint32_t	doneq_index;
> > > +	volatile uint32_t	doneq_index;

The volatile here is not right.  It's just normal memory.

regards,
dan carpenter