linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v3 11/11] scsi: ufs: core: Perform read back before writing run/stop regs

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: <d4e9bf6c-0a71-49d1-a74b-76eba3af6a51@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 11:25:47 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
 "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
 Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Janek Kotas <jank@...ence.com>,
 Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
 Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 11/11] scsi: ufs: core: Perform read back before
 writing run/stop regs

On 12/21/23 11:09, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> Currently a wmb() is used to ensure that writes to the
> UTP_TASK_REQ_LIST_BASE* regs are completed prior to following writes to
> the run/stop registers.
> 
> wmb() ensure that the write completes, but completion doesn't mean that
> it isn't stored in a buffer somewhere. The recommendation for
> ensuring the bits have taken effect on the device is to perform a read
> back to force it to make it all the way to the device. This is
> documented in device-io.rst and a talk by Will Deacon on this can
> be seen over here:
> 
>      https://youtu.be/i6DayghhA8Q?si=MiyxB5cKJXSaoc01&t=1678
> 
> Let's do that to ensure the bits hit the device. Because the wmb()'s
> purpose wasn't to add extra ordering (on top of the ordering guaranteed
> by writel()/readl()), it can safely be removed.

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>