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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 20:33:37 +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, Ben Chan <benchan@...gle.com>,
        Eric Caruso <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

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 8:08 PM Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/15/19 2:34 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> +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.
>
> Currently, the assignment *does* become a "stp" instruction.
> But I don't know that we can *force* the compiler to write it
> as a pair of registers, so I'll soften the comment with
> "Attempt to write" or something similar.
>
> To my knowledge, adding a volatile qualifier only prevents the
> compiler from performing funny optimizations, but that has no
> effect on whether the 128-bit assignment is made as a single
> unit.  Do you know otherwise?

I don't think it you can force the 128-bit assignment to be
atomic, but marking 'dest_tre' should serve to prevent a
specific optimization that replaces the function with

    dest_tre->addr = ...
    dest_tre->len_opcode = ...
    dest_tre->reserved = ...
    dest_tre->flags = ...

which it might find more efficient than the stp and is equivalent
when the pointer is not marked volatile. We also have the WRITE_ONCE()
macro that can help prevent this, but it does not work reliably beyond
64 bit assignments.

      Arnd