linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after timeouts in busy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230906143147.GD1599918@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Sep 2023 17:31:47 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after
 timeouts in busy_loop()

On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 04:46:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 05:27:23PM -0500, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Mika Westerberg (2023-08-31 22:50:11)
> > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 06:14:01PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > It's possible for the polling loop in busy_loop() to get scheduled away
> > > > for a long time.
> > > >
> > > >   status = ipc_read_status(scu);
> > > >   <long time scheduled away>
> > > >   if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
> > >
> > > How can the status bit change here as we are the only user and the SCU
> > > access is serialized by ipclock?
> > 
> > I don't know how the SCU works. I thought that IPC_STATUS_BUSY bit was
> > cleared by the SCU when it was done processing. With that assumption, I
> > tried to show that the status is read and then the process schedules
> > away for a long time and has an outdated view of the busy bit.
> 
> We probably have different versions of firmwares for the different SoC
> generations. But I _think_ that you are right, the SCU firmware should
> clear the bit when it's done.

Yes, IIRC it does. Okay I see the (potential, although quite unlikely)
problem now. Thanks!