linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section

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: <65dead0b-34a5-4e29-83ec-c26e556f262a@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2024 08:02:37 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com,
 jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, beanhuo@...ron.com,
 adrian.hunter@...el.com, h10.kim@...sung.com, hy50.seo@...sung.com,
 sh425.lee@...sung.com, kwangwon.min@...sung.com, junwoo80.lee@...sung.com,
 wkon.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ufs: get target SQ entry within critical section

On 1/3/24 17:24, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
> In IO centric scenarios, especially during a period that
> many IO requests are submitted to a same HW queue at the same
> time, it's found that one reqeust overwrote a SQ entry
> that had been already occupied by another request submitted
> in the past. And it eventually led to command timed-out
> because one of two requests were overwritten, which could not
> be completed.
> 
> [   74.995185][  T176] exynos-ufs 17100000.ufs: ufshcd_abort: Device abort task at tag 30
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>
> ---
>   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 7bc3fc4..da1a9c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -2199,9 +2199,10 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int task_tag,
>   	if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
>   		int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
>   		struct utp_transfer_req_desc *src = lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr;
> -		struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
> +		struct utp_transfer_req_desc *dest;
>   
>   		spin_lock(&hwq->sq_lock);
> +		dest = hwq->sqe_base_addr + hwq->sq_tail_slot;
>   		memcpy(dest, src, utrd_size);
>   		ufshcd_inc_sq_tail(hwq);
>   		spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);

Is this perhaps a duplicate of patch "scsi: ufs: core: Let the sq_lock 
protect sq_tail_slot access"? See also
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/1702913550-20631-1-git-send-email-quic_cang@quicinc.com/#t

Thanks,

Bart.