linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] drm: disable WC optimization for cache coherent devices on non-x86

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: <850b6aee-0040-c333-b125-45211c18ada5@daenzer.net>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:23:58 +0100
From:   Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        David Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Junwei Zhang <Jerry.Zhang@....com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drm: disable WC optimization for cache coherent
 devices on non-x86

On 2019-01-21 7:20 p.m., Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 19:04, Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-01-21 6:59 p.m., Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 18:55, Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2019-01-21 5:30 p.m., Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 17:22, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until that happens we should just change the driver ifdefs to default
>>>>>> the hacks to off and only enable them on setups where we 100%
>>>>>> positively know that they actually work.  And document that fact
>>>>>> in big fat comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as I mentioned in my commit log as well, if we default to off
>>>>> unless CONFIG_X86, we may break working setups on MIPS and Power where
>>>>> the device is in fact non-cache coherent, and relies on this
>>>>> 'optimization' to get things working.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the amdgpu driver doesn't rely on non-snooped transfers for
>>>> correct basic operation (the scenario Christian brought up is a very
>>>> specialized use-case), so that shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that this is only true for x86.
>>>
>>> On other architectures, the use of non-cached mappings on the CPU side
>>> means that you /do/ rely on non-snooped transfers, since if those
>>> transfers turn out not to snoop inadvertently, the accesses are
>>> incoherent with the CPU's view of memory.
>>
>> The driver generally only uses non-cached mappings if
>> drm_arch/device_can_wc_memory returns true.
>>
> 
> Indeed. And so we should take care to only return 'true' from that
> function if it is guaranteed that non-cached CPU mappings are coherent
> with the mappings used by the GPU, either because that is always the
> case (like on x86), or because we know that the platform in question
> implements NoSnoop correctly throughout the interconnect.
> 
> What seems to be complicating matters is that in some cases, the
> device is non-cache coherent to begin with, so regardless of whether
> the NoSnoop attribute is used or not, those accesses will not snoop in
> the caches and be coherent with the non-cached mappings used by the
> CPU. So if we restrict this optimization [on non-X86] to platforms
> that are known to implement NoSnoop correctly, we may break platforms
> that are implicitly NoSnoop all the time.

Since the driver generally doesn't rely on non-snooped accesses for
correctness, that couldn't "break" anything that hasn't always been broken.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer