linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Use arch_timer_read

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]

Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:16:48 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Use
 arch_timer_read_counter to access stable counters

On 08/04/2019 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Instead of always going via arch_counter_get_cntvct_stable to
> access the counter workaround, let's have arch_timer_read_counter
> to point to the right method.
> 
> For that, we need to track whether any CPU in the system has a
> workaround for the counter. This is done by having an atomic
> variable tracking this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> ---

[ ... ]

> +
>  /*
>   * Default to cp15 based access because arm64 uses this function for
>   * sched_clock() before DT is probed and the cp15 method is guaranteed
> @@ -372,6 +392,7 @@ static u32 notrace sun50i_a64_read_cntv_tval_el0(void)
>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *, timer_unstable_counter_workaround);
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(timer_unstable_counter_workaround);
>  
> +static atomic_t timer_unstable_counter_workaround_in_use = ATOMIC_INIT(0);

Wouldn't make sense to READ_ONCE / WRITE_ONCE instead of using an atomic?

>  static void erratum_set_next_event_tval_generic(const int access, unsigned long evt,
>  						struct clock_event_device *clk)
> @@ -550,6 +571,9 @@ void arch_timer_enable_workaround(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *wa
>  			per_cpu(timer_unstable_counter_workaround, i) = wa;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (wa->read_cntvct_el0 || wa->read_cntpct_el0)
> +		atomic_set(&timer_unstable_counter_workaround_in_use, 1);
> +

[ ... ]

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog