linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: sst: ipc command timeout

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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:19:03 +0200
From:   Amadeusz Sławiński 
        <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@...el.com>,
        "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Cc:     Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com" 
        <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: sst: ipc command timeout



On 4/28/2020 7:29 PM, Lu, Brent wrote:
>>
>> I've looked at the code and byt_is_dsp_busy seems suspicious to me.
>> Can you check if following change fixes problem for you:(...)
>>
>> We seem to treat SST_IPCX as 32 bit register instead of 64 one, which may
>> explain wrong behaviour. (Specification says it is 64 bit register).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amadeusz
> 
> Hi Amadeusz,
> 
> The patch does not work but I managed to create a workaround just for
> reference. Still don't know why first read in sst_byt_irq_thread returns
> incorrect value.
> 

Hi,
yes that seems bit weird. It is bit better as it does not modify common 
code, but still... Maybe going back to your original idea of replacing 
memcpy, try replacing it with readq? It should generate one instruction 
read (although it is only for x64_64, for 32 bit kernel we would still 
need to do something else).

Thanks,
Amadeusz