linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tty-next v4 4/6] serial: 8250: Provide flag for IER toggling for RS485

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: <Z3vh_Bi8tgu_dKvH@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:00:28 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
	Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@...libre.com>,
	Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@...com>,
	Griffin Kroah-Hartman <griffin@...ah.com>,
	Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tty-next v4 4/6] serial: 8250: Provide flag for IER
 toggling for RS485

On Sun 2025-01-05 01:32:00, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2025-01-03, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> > My understanding is that the nested IER manipulation does not
> > harm.
> 
> This statement implies that it is OK for UART_IER_RLSI|UART_IER_RDI bits
> to be set in UART_IER even though the console will write to UART_TX,
> because the _nesting_ contexts would set those bits rather than
> restoring the original value of 0x0.

This is a misunderstanding. I am sorry I was not clear enough.

To be more clear. By the nested context I meant

	if (em485) {
		if (em485->tx_stopped)
			up->rs485_start_tx(up);

call by serial8250_console_write(). The original code did:

	+ up->rs485_start_tx()
	  + serial8250_em485_start_tx()
	    + serial8250_stop_rx()

, where serial8250_stop_rx() cleared the flags:

static void serial8250_stop_rx(struct uart_port *port)
{
[...]
	up->ier &= ~(UART_IER_RLSI | UART_IER_RDI);
	serial_port_out(port, UART_IER, up->ier);
[...]
}

But the flags were already cleared by:

	__serial8250_clear_IER(up);

called by serial8250_console_write() _earlier_. Which did:

static void __serial8250_clear_IER(struct uart_8250_port *up)
{
	if (up->capabilities & UART_CAP_UUE)
		serial_out(up, UART_IER, UART_IER_UUE);
	else
		serial_out(up, UART_IER, 0);

}


It means that the nested serial8250_stop_rx() did not change anything.
It was a NOP. The bits were already cleared.

Similar, the counter part. The bits were later set by

	up->rs485_stop_tx(up)

which did:

	+ serial8250_em485_stop_tx

void serial8250_em485_stop_tx(struct uart_8250_port *p, bool toggle_ier)
{
[...]
	p->ier |= UART_IER_RLSI | UART_IER_RDI;
	serial_port_out(&p->port, UART_IER, p->ier);
[...]
}

But it was after the writing the message so that it did not affect
the operation.

> I ran some tests and leaving these bits set during Tx does not appear to
> cause an issue, but it is difficult to say because the context
> interrupted by a nesting context will only print at most 1
> character. Also, it is writing under spin_lock_irqsave() so that might
> be masking any effects. Perhaps UART_IER is temporarly cleared because
> of other bits that would cause problems during Tx?
> 
> I would need to create a specific test to investigate this
> further. Regardless, it still is a cosmetic ugliness that bits are not
> being properly restored, even if it turns out these particular bits are
> not problematic during Tx.

I think that you do not need to investigate it further. We should keep
IER cleared when writing the message.


> > All in all, the patch looks good to me.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> 
> Thanks for the review. I interpret it to mean that I do not need to make
> any changes to this patch for v5.

Yup, I am fine with the patch as it is.

Best Regards,
Petr