| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 17:56:57 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@...log.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] iio: adc: max1027: Push only the requested
samples
On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 08:59:55 +0000
"Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@...log.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:12 AM
> > To: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa@...log.com>
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>; Lars-Peter Clausen
> > <lars@...afoo.de>; Thomas Petazzoni
> > <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>; linux-iio@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] iio: adc: max1027: Push only the requested
> > samples
> >
> > [External]
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@...log.com> wrote on Mon, 30 Aug 2021
> > 15:02:26
> > +0000:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 4:30 PM
> > > > To: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa@...log.com>
> > > > Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>; Lars-Peter
> > Clausen
> > > > <lars@...afoo.de>; Thomas Petazzoni
> > > > <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>; linux-iio@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-
> > > > kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] iio: adc: max1027: Push only the
> > requested
> > > > samples
> > > >
> > > > [External]
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 10:49:50 +0000
> > > > "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@...log.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 12:08 PM
> > > > > > To: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa@...log.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>; Lars-Peter
> > > > Clausen
> > > > > > <lars@...afoo.de>; Thomas Petazzoni
> > > > > > <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>; linux-iio@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > linux-
> > > > > > kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] iio: adc: max1027: Push only the
> > > > requested
> > > > > > samples
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [External]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 07:10:48 +0000
> > > > > > "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@...log.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 1:11 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>; Lars-Peter
> > Clausen
> > > > > > > > <lars@...afoo.de>
> > > > > > > > Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>;
> > linux-
> > > > > > > > iio@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Miquel
> > > > Raynal
> > > > > > > > <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 03/16] iio: adc: max1027: Push only the
> > > > requested
> > > > > > > > samples
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [External]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a triggered scan occurs, the identity of the desired
> > > > channels
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > known in indio_dev->active_scan_mask. Instead of reading
> > and
> > > > > > > > pushing to
> > > > > > > > the IIO buffers all channels each time, scan the minimum
> > > > amount
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > channels (0 to maximum requested chan, to be exact) and
> > only
> > > > > > > > provide the
> > > > > > > > samples requested by the user.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example, if the user wants channels 1, 4 and 5, all
> > channels
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > 0 to 5 will be scanned but only the desired channels will be
> > > > pushed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the IIO buffers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > drivers/iio/adc/max1027.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> > ---
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/max1027.c
> > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/max1027.c
> > > > > > > > index b753658bb41e..8ab660f596b5 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/max1027.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/max1027.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -360,6 +360,9 @@ static int
> > > > max1027_set_trigger_state(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_trigger *trig, bool state)
> > > > > > > > struct max1027_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > int ret;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + if (bitmap_empty(indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> > > > indio_dev-
> > > > > > > > >masklength))
> > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure this can actually happen. If you try to enable the
> > > > buffer
> > > > > > > with no scan element, it should give you an error before you
> > > > reach
> > > > > > > this point...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if (state) {
> > > > > > > > /* Start acquisition on cnvst */
> > > > > > > > st->reg = MAX1027_SETUP_REG |
> > > > > > > > MAX1027_CKS_MODE0 |
> > > > > > > > @@ -368,9 +371,12 @@ static int
> > > > max1027_set_trigger_state(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_trigger *trig, bool state)
> > > > > > > > if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > return ret;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - /* Scan from 0 to max */
> > > > > > > > - st->reg = MAX1027_CONV_REG |
> > > > MAX1027_CHAN(0) |
> > > > > > > > - MAX1027_SCAN_N_M |
> > > > MAX1027_TEMP;
> > > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > > + * Scan from 0 to the highest requested
> > > > channel. The
> > > > > > > > temperature
> > > > > > > > + * could be avoided but it simplifies a bit the
> > > > logic.
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + st->reg = MAX1027_CONV_REG |
> > > > > > > > MAX1027_SCAN_0_N | MAX1027_TEMP;
> > > > > > > > + st->reg |= MAX1027_CHAN(fls(*indio_dev-
> > > > > > > > >active_scan_mask) - 2);
> > > > > > > > ret = spi_write(st->spi, &st->reg, 1);
> > > > > > > > if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > return ret;
> > > > > > > > @@ -391,11 +397,22 @@ static irqreturn_t
> > > > > > > > max1027_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
> > > > > > > > struct iio_poll_func *pf = private;
> > > > > > > > struct iio_dev *indio_dev = pf->indio_dev;
> > > > > > > > struct max1027_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > + unsigned int scanned_chans = fls(*indio_dev-
> > > > > > > > >active_scan_mask);
> > > > > > > > + u16 *buf = st->buffer;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think sparse will complain here. buffer is a __be16 restricted
> > > > > > > type so you should not mix those...
> > > > > > > > + unsigned int bit;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > pr_debug("%s(irq=%d, private=0x%p)\n", __func__,
> > > > irq,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > private);in/20210818_miquel_raynal_bring_software_triggers_support
> > > > > > _to_max1027_like_adcs.mbx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /* fill buffer with all channel */
> > > > > > > > - spi_read(st->spi, st->buffer, indio_dev->masklength *
> > > > 2);
> > > > > > > > + spi_read(st->spi, st->buffer, scanned_chans * 2);
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /* Only keep the channels selected by the user */
> > > > > > > > + for_each_set_bit(bit, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> > > > > > > > + indio_dev->masklength) {
> > > > > > > > + if (buf[0] != st->buffer[bit])
> > > > > > > > + buf[0] = st->buffer[bit];
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since we are here, when looking into the driver, I realized
> > > > > > > that st->buffer is not DMA safe. In IIO, we kind of want to
> > > > enforce
> > > > > > > that all buffers that are passed to spi/i2c buses are safe...
> > Maybe
> > > > > > > this is something you can include in your series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is it not? st->buffer is result of a devm_kmalloc_array()
> > call
> > > > and
> > > > > > that should provide a DMA safe buffer as I understand it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a good question. I'm not sure how I came to that
> > conclusion
> > > > which
> > > > > is clearly wrong. Though I think the buffer might share the line
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > mutex...
> > > > Pointer shares a line. The buffer it points to doesn't as allocated
> > > > by separate heap allocation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ups, sure :facepalm:
> >
> > My understanding [1] was that devm_ allocations were generally not
> > suitable for DMA and should not be used for this particular purpose
> > because of the extra 16 bytes allocated for storing the devm magic
> > somewhere, which shifts the entire buffer and prevents it to always
> > be
> > aligned on a cache line. I will propose a patch to switch to
> > kmalloc_array() instead.
>
> I do not think this is a problem anymore [1]. Nowadays, 'devm_kmalloc'
> should give you the same alignment guarantees as 'kmalloc'
>
> [1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/base/devres.c#L35
Great info. I remembered a discussion about fixing that, but couldn't find
the patch. For some reason I didn't just check the code :)
Thanks.
Jonathan
>
> - Nuno Sá
Powered by blists - more mailing lists