linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 07/17] firmware: arm_scmi: Handle concurrent and out-of-order messages

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]

Message-ID: <85868de4-54bf-cca8-3786-61a404b80117@opensynergy.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:32:58 +0200
From:   Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
        james.quinlan@...adcom.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, etienne.carriere@...aro.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com,
        igor.skalkin@...nsynergy.com, alex.bennee@...aro.org,
        jean-philippe@...aro.org, mikhail.golubev@...nsynergy.com,
        anton.yakovlev@...nsynergy.com, Vasyl.Vavrychuk@...nsynergy.com,
        Andriy.Tryshnivskyy@...nsynergy.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/17] firmware: arm_scmi: Handle concurrent and
 out-of-order messages

On 19.07.21 11:14, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:36:03PM +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> On 12.07.21 16:18, Cristian Marussi wrote:

[snip]

>>> @@ -608,6 +755,7 @@ static int do_xfer(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>>>    			      xfer->hdr.protocol_id, xfer->hdr.seq,
>>>    			      xfer->hdr.poll_completion);
>>> +	xfer->state = SCMI_XFER_SENT_OK;
>>
>> To be completely safe, this assignment could also be protected by the
>> xfer->lock.
>>
> 
> In fact this would be true being xfer->lock meant to protect the state but it
> seemed to me unnecessary here given that this is a brand new xfer with a
> brand new (monotonic) seq number so that any possibly late-received msg will
> carry an old stale seq number certainly different from this such that cannot be
> possibly mapped to this same xfer. (but just discarded on xfer lookup in
> xfer_command_acquire)
> 
> The issue indeed could still exist only for do_xfer loops (as you pointed out
> already early on) where the seq_num is used, but in that case on a timeout we
> would have already bailed out of the loop and reported an error so any timed-out
> late received response would have been anyway discarded; so at the end I thought
> I could avoid spinlocking here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian
> 

I mostly meant to refer to the possibility of a very fast response not 
seeing this assignment, since the next line is

>  	ret = info->desc->ops->send_message(cinfo, xfer);

and during that a regular scmi_rx_callback(), reading xfer->state, can 
already arrive. But maybe this is too theoretical.

Best regards,

Peter