linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: mstar: Add machine for MStar infinity family SoCs

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: <20191017211513.GA12691@shiro>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 06:15:15 +0900
From:   Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: mstar: Add machine for MStar infinity family
 SoCs

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:02:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I've moved this into infinity_barriers_init() using ioremap() as suggested.
> > I'd like to keep the fixed remap address for now as there are some
> > drivers in the vendor code that might be useful until rewrites are done but
> > are littered with hard coded addresses.
>
> Maybe keep the infinity_io_desc as an out-of-tree patch then? You can
> simply do both, and ioremap() will return the hardcoded address.

That makes sense.
 
> > I've taken the lock out and tested that the ethernet isn't sending garbage
> > and everything looks good.
> 
> I would not expect a missing spinlock to have an observable effect, the
> question is more whether it's correct in all rare corner cases where
> the barrier is interrupted and the interrupt handler uses another barrier.
> 
> I think it is, but I would recommend adding a comment to explain this if
> you drop the spinlock. (or a comment about why this works with fiq if you
> keep the lock).

I think I'll drop the lock for now and add it back if it becomes apparent
it's needed. I suspect it was added in the vendor code out of habit instead
of need.

Thanks for the input.

Daniel