[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d79c6f0-cb38-70fc-93e7-0172417ecbfd@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:27:10 +0800
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<jason@...edaemon.net>, <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure accessing the correct RD when
writing INVALLR
Hi Marc,
On 2020/7/17 19:07, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 14:49:59 +0100,
> Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> The GICv4.1 spec tells us that it's CONSTRAINED UNPREDICTABLE to issue a
>> register-based invalidation operation for a vPEID not mapped to that RD,
>> or another RD within the same CommonLPIAff group.
>>
>> To follow this rule, commit f3a059219bc7 ("irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure mutual
>> exclusion between vPE affinity change and RD access") tried to address the
>> race between the RD accesses and the vPE affinity change, but somehow
>> forgot to take GICR_INVALLR into account. Let's take the vpe_lock before
>> evaluating vpe->col_idx to fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
>
> Shouldn't this deserve a Fixes: tag?
Yes, I think a
Fixes: f3a059219bc7 ("irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure mutual exclusion between
vPE affinity change and RD access")
should be enough. Should I resend a version with the tag added?
Thanks,
Zenghui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists