linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/18] soc: qcom: ipa: GSI transactions

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: <CAK8P3a0eYWN6mMwft5OSu8wQQo=kWh5safGFFNkDCELZJyiMmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 09:34:44 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        syadagir@...eaurora.org, mjavid@...eaurora.org,
        evgreen@...omium.org, benchan@...gle.com, ejcaruso@...gle.com,
        abhishek.esse@...il.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/18] soc: qcom: ipa: GSI transactions

> +static void gsi_trans_tre_fill(struct gsi_tre *dest_tre, dma_addr_t addr,
> +                              u32 len, bool last_tre, bool bei,
> +                              enum ipa_cmd_opcode opcode)
> +{
> +       struct gsi_tre tre;
> +
> +       tre.addr = cpu_to_le64(addr);
> +       tre.len_opcode = gsi_tre_len_opcode(opcode, len);
> +       tre.reserved = 0;
> +       tre.flags = gsi_tre_flags(last_tre, bei, opcode);
> +
> +       *dest_tre = tre;        /* Write TRE as a single (16-byte) unit */
> +}

Have you checked that the atomic write is actually what happens here,
but looking at the compiler output? You might need to add a 'volatile'
qualifier to the dest_tre argument so the temporary structure doesn't
get optimized away here.

> +/* Cancel a channel's pending transactions */
> +void gsi_channel_trans_cancel_pending(struct gsi_channel *channel)
> +{
> +       struct gsi_trans_info *trans_info = &channel->trans_info;
> +       u32 evt_ring_id = channel->evt_ring_id;
> +       struct gsi *gsi = channel->gsi;
> +       struct gsi_evt_ring *evt_ring;
> +       struct gsi_trans *trans;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +
> +       evt_ring = &gsi->evt_ring[evt_ring_id];
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&evt_ring->ring.spinlock, flags);
> +
> +       list_for_each_entry(trans, &trans_info->pending, links)
> +               trans->result = -ECANCELED;
> +
> +       list_splice_tail_init(&trans_info->pending, &trans_info->complete);
> +
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&evt_ring->ring.spinlock, flags);
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&gsi->spinlock, flags);
> +
> +       if (gsi->event_enable_bitmap & BIT(evt_ring_id))
> +               gsi_event_handle(gsi, evt_ring_id);
> +
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gsi->spinlock, flags);
> +}

That is a lot of irqsave()/irqrestore() operations. Do you actually call
all of these functions from hardirq context?

      Arnd