linux-kernel - [PATCH] irqchip/stm32-exti: avoid interrupts losing due to clearing pending bit by mistake

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:39:31 +0800
From:   qiuguorui1 <qiuguorui1@...wei.com>
To:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <jason@...edaemon.net>, <maz@...nel.org>,
        <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, <alexandre.torgue@...com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <zengweilin@...wei.com>,
        <chenjianguo3@...wei.com>, <qiuguorui1@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] irqchip/stm32-exti: avoid interrupts losing due to clearing pending bit by mistake

In the previous code, when the eoi handle of the exti clears the pending
bit of the current interrupt, it will first read the values of fpr and
rpr, then logically OR the corresponding bit of the interrupt number,
and finally write back to fpr and rpr.

We found through experiments that if two exti interrupts,
we call them int1/int2, arrive almost at the same time. in our scenario,
the time difference is 30 microseconds, assuming int1 is triggered first.

there will be an extreme scenario: both int's pending bit are set to 1,
the irq handle of int1 is executed first, and eoi handle is then executed,
at this moment, all pending bits are cleared, but the int 2 has not
finally been reported to the cpu yet, which eventually lost int2.

According to stm32's TRM description about rpr and fpr: Writing a 1 to this
bit will trigger a rising edge event on event x, Writing 0 has no
effect.

Therefore, when clearing the pending bit, we only need to clear the
pending bit of the irq.

Signed-off-by: qiuguorui1 <qiuguorui1@...wei.com>
---
 drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
index 03a36be757d8..ee4faf5c90b8 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
 
 #define HWSPNLCK_TIMEOUT	1000 /* usec */
 
+enum reg_ops {
+	REG_WRITE_ONLY,
+	REG_READ_WRITE
+};
+
 struct stm32_exti_bank {
 	u32 imr_ofst;
 	u32 emr_ofst;
@@ -416,13 +421,14 @@ static void stm32_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
 	irq_gc_unlock(gc);
 }
 
-static inline u32 stm32_exti_set_bit(struct irq_data *d, u32 reg)
+static inline u32 stm32_exti_set_bit(struct irq_data *d, u32 reg, enum reg_ops op)
 {
 	struct stm32_exti_chip_data *chip_data = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
 	void __iomem *base = chip_data->host_data->base;
-	u32 val;
+	u32 val = 0;
 
-	val = readl_relaxed(base + reg);
+	if (op == REG_READ_WRITE)
+		val = readl_relaxed(base + reg);
 	val |= BIT(d->hwirq % IRQS_PER_BANK);
 	writel_relaxed(val, base + reg);
 
@@ -449,9 +455,9 @@ static void stm32_exti_h_eoi(struct irq_data *d)
 
 	raw_spin_lock(&chip_data->rlock);
 
-	stm32_exti_set_bit(d, stm32_bank->rpr_ofst);
+	stm32_exti_set_bit(d, stm32_bank->rpr_ofst, REG_WRITE_ONLY);
 	if (stm32_bank->fpr_ofst != UNDEF_REG)
-		stm32_exti_set_bit(d, stm32_bank->fpr_ofst);
+		stm32_exti_set_bit(d, stm32_bank->fpr_ofst, REG_WRITE_ONLY);
 
 	raw_spin_unlock(&chip_data->rlock);
 
@@ -478,7 +484,7 @@ static void stm32_exti_h_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
 	const struct stm32_exti_bank *stm32_bank = chip_data->reg_bank;
 
 	raw_spin_lock(&chip_data->rlock);
-	chip_data->mask_cache = stm32_exti_set_bit(d, stm32_bank->imr_ofst);
+	chip_data->mask_cache = stm32_exti_set_bit(d, stm32_bank->imr_ofst, REG_READ_WRITE);
 	raw_spin_unlock(&chip_data->rlock);
 
 	if (d->parent_data->chip)
-- 
2.12.3