linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bug Fix for last patch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALecT5iDxuzRPvPg8w=WmLT9XtWxOieDN=iRoY0nAdyhdLV+SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:15:05 +0000
From:   Yixun Lan <yixun.lan@...il.com>
To:     Jiuyang Liu <liu@...yang.me>
Cc:     Andrew Waterman <waterman@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
        Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bug Fix for last patch

Hi Jiuyang

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:56 AM Jiuyang Liu <liu@...yang.me> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the noise, Andrew gave me feedbacks, and pointed two bugs in
> last patch.
> 1. asid should be thread safe, which is not the intent.
> 2. asid extracting logic was wrong.
>
> This patch fixes these bugs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiuyang Liu <liu@...yang.me>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 4b25f51f163d..1f9b62b3670b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -22,10 +22,14 @@ static inline void local_flush_tlb_page(unsigned long addr)
>         __asm__ __volatile__ ("sfence.vma %0" : : "r" (addr) : "memory");
>  }
>
> -static unsigned long asid;
> +static inline unsigned long get_current_asid(void)
> +{
> +       return (csr_read(CSR_SATP) >> SATP_ASID_SHIFT) & SATP_ASID_MASK;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void local_flush_tlb_asid(void)
>  {
> -       asid = csr_read(CSR_SATP) | (SATP_ASID_MASK << SATP_ASID_SHIFT);
> +       unsigned long asid = get_current_asid();
>         __asm__ __volatile__ ("sfence.vma x0, %0" : : "r" (asid) : "memory");
>  }
>

This patch title is  too obscure to parse, it should clearly reflect
what's the changes doing here

my two suggestions
1) if previous patches have already been merged, then you probably
should fix title (the commit message)
 and re-send the patch? and maybe add a "Fixes" tag here
2) if previous patches still under reviewing.. then
  a) you can send an update patches series (can squash this fix)
  b) or maintainer willing to squash this fix for you?