linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: amazon: al-pos: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna Labs POS driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:21:01 +0300
From:   "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@...zon.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Patrick Venture" <venture@...gle.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Olof Johansson" <olof@...om.net>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        "Santosh Shilimkar" <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>, <mjourdan@...libre.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        <hhhawa@...zon.com>, <ronenk@...zon.com>, <jonnyc@...zon.com>,
        <hanochu@...zon.com>, <barakw@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: amazon: al-pos: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna
 Labs POS driver


On 9/9/2019 6:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:11 PM Shenhar, Talel <talel@...zon.com> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2019 4:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> In current implementation of v1, I am not doing any read barrier, Hence,
>> using the non-relaxed will add unneeded memory barrier.
>>
>> I have no strong objection moving to the non-relaxed version and have an
>> unneeded memory barrier, as this path is not "hot" one.
> Ok, then please add it.
ok, shall be part of v2
>
>> Beside of avoiding the unneeded memory barrier, I would be happy to keep
>> common behavior for our drivers:
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/irqchip/irq-al-fic.c#L49
>>
>>
>> So what do you think we should go with? relaxed or non-relaxed?
> The al_fic_set_trigger() function is clearly a slow-path and should use the
> non-relaxed functions. In case of al_fic_irq_handler(), the extra barrier
> might introduce a measurable overhead, but at the same time I'm
> not sure if that one is correct without the barrier:
>
> If you have an MSI-type interrupt for notifying a device driver of
> a DMA completion, there might not be any other barrier between
> the arrival of the MSI message and the CPU accessing the data.
> Depending on how strict the hardware implements MSI and how
> the IRQ is chained, this could lead to data corruption.
>
> If the interrupt is only used for level or edge triggered interrupts,
> this is ok since you already need another register read in
> the driver before it can safely access a DMA buffer.
>
> In either case, if you can prove that it's safe to use the relaxed
> version here and you think that it may help, it would be good to
> add a comment explaining the reasoning.
Decided to go with the non-relaxed version as this is not hot path and 
likely be more clear to the common reader to have non relaxed version.
>
>         Arnd