linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommu/mediatek: Use writel for TLB range invalidation

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: <20191014211113.jq5qwe5pfonyocr3@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:11:14 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...gle.com>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, srv_heupstream@...iatek.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, youlin.pei@...iatek.com,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>, anan.sun@...iatek.com,
        cui.zhang@...iatek.com, chao.hao@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommu/mediatek: Use writel for TLB range
 invalidation

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:23:47PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 17:29 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:19:02PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> > > Use writel for the register F_MMU_INV_RANGE which is for triggering the
> > > HW work. We expect all the setting(iova_start/iova_end...) have already
> > > been finished before F_MMU_INV_RANGE.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Anan.Sun <anan.sun@...iatek.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
> > > ---
> > > This is a improvement rather than fixing a issue.
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 3 +--
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > index 24a13a6..607f92c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > @@ -187,8 +187,7 @@ static void mtk_iommu_tlb_add_flush(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
> > >  		writel_relaxed(iova, data->base + REG_MMU_INVLD_START_A);
> > >  		writel_relaxed(iova + size - 1,
> > >  			       data->base + REG_MMU_INVLD_END_A);
> > > -		writel_relaxed(F_MMU_INV_RANGE,
> > > -			       data->base + REG_MMU_INVALIDATE);
> > > +		writel(F_MMU_INV_RANGE, data->base + REG_MMU_INVALIDATE);
> > 
> > I don't understand this change.
> > 
> > Why is it an "improvement" and which accesses are you ordering with the
> > writel?
> 
> The register(F_MMU_INV_RANGE) will trigger HW to begin flush range. HW
> expect the other register iova_start/end/flush_type always is ready
> before trigger. thus I'd like use writel to guarantee the previous
> register has been finished.

Given that these are all MMIO writes to the same device, then
writel_relaxed() should give you the ordering you need. If you look at
memory_barriers.txt, it says:

  | they [readX_relaxed() and writeX_relaxed()] are still guaranteed to
  | be ordered with respect to other accesses from the same CPU thread
  | to the same peripheral when operating on __iomem pointers mapped
  | with the default I/O attributes.

> I didn't see the writel_relaxed cause some error in practice, we only
> think writel is necessary here in theory. so call it "improvement".

Ok, but I don't think it's needed in this case.

Will