linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: Use write memory barrier after updating CQ index

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, 9 Dec 2020 03:05:42 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
Cc:     jasowang@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lulu@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: Use write memory barrier after updating CQ
 index

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:58:46AM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:46:22AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:02:30AM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 04:45:04PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:57:19PM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
> > > > > Make sure to put write memory barrier after updating CQ consumer index
> > > > > so the hardware knows that there are available CQE slots in the queue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Failure to do this can cause the update of the RX doorbell record to get
> > > > > updated before the CQ consumer index resulting in CQ overrun.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Change-Id: Ib0ae4c118cce524c9f492b32569179f3c1f04cc1
> > > > > Fixes: 1a86b377aa21 ("vdpa/mlx5: Add VDPA driver for supported mlx5 devices")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Aren't both memory writes?
> > > 
> > > Not sure what exactly you mean here.
> > 
> > Both updates are CPU writes into RAM that hardware then reads
> > using DMA.
> > 
> 
> You mean why I did not put a memory barrier right after updating the
> recieve doorbell record?

Sorry about being unclear.  I just tried to give justification for why
dma_wmb seems more appropriate than wmb here. If you need to
order memory writes wrt writes to card, that is different, but generally
writeX and friends will handle the ordering for you, except when
using relaxed memory mappings - then wmb is generally necessary.

> I thought about this and I think it is not required. Suppose it takes a
> very long time till the hardware can actually see this update. The worst
> effect would be that the hardware will drop received packets if it does
> sees none available due to the delayed update. Eventually it will see
> the update and will continue working.
> 
> If I put a memory barrier, I put some delay waiting for the CPU to flush
> the write before continuing. I tried both options while checking packet
> rate on couldn't see noticable difference in either case.


makes sense.

> > > > And given that, isn't dma_wmb() sufficient here?
> > > 
> > > I agree that dma_wmb() is more appropriate here.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c | 5 +++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c
> > > > > index 1f4089c6f9d7..295f46eea2a5 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c
> > > > > @@ -478,6 +478,11 @@ static int mlx5_vdpa_poll_one(struct mlx5_vdpa_cq *vcq)
> > > > >  static void mlx5_vdpa_handle_completions(struct mlx5_vdpa_virtqueue *mvq, int num)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	mlx5_cq_set_ci(&mvq->cq.mcq);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* make sure CQ cosumer update is visible to the hardware before updating
> > > > > +	 * RX doorbell record.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	wmb();
> > > > >  	rx_post(&mvq->vqqp, num);
> > > > >  	if (mvq->event_cb.callback)
> > > > >  		mvq->event_cb.callback(mvq->event_cb.private);
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.27.0
> > > > 
> >