Message-ID: <CAEEQ3wn8Q04ne7nqq+MTtx=ocbi16FuCR-ptZpmYx_23Xwt60Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 22:00:30 +0800
From: yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: arnd@...db.de, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	benjamin.larsson@...exis.eu, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, 
	jkeeping@...usicbrands.com, john.ogness@...utronix.de, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, 
	markus.mayer@...aro.org, matt.porter@...aro.org, namcao@...utronix.de, 
	paulmck@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, 
	sunilvl@...tanamicro.com, tim.kryger@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] serial: 8250: avoid potential
 PSLVERR issue

Hi Ilpo,

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:03 PM Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2025, yunhui cui wrote:
>
> > Hi Ilpo,
> >
> > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 6:27 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> > <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 May 2025, yunhui cui wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ilpo,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:00 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 6 May 2025, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Failure to check the UART_LSR_DR before reading UART_RX, or the
> > > > > > non-atomic nature of clearing the FIFO and reading UART_RX, poses
> > > > > > potential risks that could lead to PSLVERR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't expect reader to know the condition how PSLVERR is triggered. I know
> > > > > it's worded out in the other patch but also explain it here.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're only explaining problem and missing what this patch does to solve
> > > > > the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.h      | 13 +++++++++
> > > > > >  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c | 43 +++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.h b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.h
> > > > > > index b861585ca02a..6f97ff3a197d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.h
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250.h
> > > > > > @@ -162,6 +162,19 @@ static inline u16 serial_lsr_in(struct uart_8250_port *up)
> > > > > >       return lsr;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * To avoid PSLVERR, check UART_LSR_DR in UART_LSR before
> > > > > > + * reading UART_RX.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +static inline void serial8250_discard_data(struct uart_8250_port *up)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +     u16 lsr;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +     lsr = serial_in(up, UART_LSR);
> > > > > > +     if (lsr & UART_LSR_DR)
> > > > > > +             serial_in(up, UART_RX);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  /*
> > > > > >   * For the 16C950
> > > > > >   */
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> > > > > > index a913135d5217..1666b965f6a0 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> > > > > > @@ -1357,9 +1357,8 @@ static void autoconfig_irq(struct uart_8250_port *up)
> > > > > >       /* Synchronize UART_IER access against the console. */
> > > > > >       uart_port_lock_irq(port);
> > > > > >       serial_out(up, UART_IER, UART_IER_ALL_INTR);
> > > > > > +     serial8250_discard_data(up);
> > > > > >       uart_port_unlock_irq(port);
> > > > > > -     serial_in(up, UART_LSR);
> > > > > > -     serial_in(up, UART_RX);
> > > > > >       serial_in(up, UART_IIR);
> > > > > >       serial_in(up, UART_MSR);
> > > > > >       serial_out(up, UART_TX, 0xFF);
> > > > > > @@ -2137,25 +2136,22 @@ static void wait_for_xmitr(struct uart_8250_port *up, int bits)
> > > > > >  static int serial8250_get_poll_char(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       struct uart_8250_port *up = up_to_u8250p(port);
> > > > > > -     int status;
> > > > > > +     int status = NO_POLL_CHAR;
> > > > > >       u16 lsr;
> > > > > > +     unsigned long flags;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       serial8250_rpm_get(up);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +     uart_port_lock_irqsave(port, &flags);
> > > > > >       lsr = serial_port_in(port, UART_LSR);
> > > > > > +     if (lsr & UART_LSR_DR)
> > > > > > +             status = serial_port_in(port, UART_RX);
> > > > > > +     uart_port_unlock_irqrestore(port, flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -     if (!(lsr & UART_LSR_DR)) {
> > > > > > -             status = NO_POLL_CHAR;
> > > > > > -             goto out;
> > > > > > -     }
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -     status = serial_port_in(port, UART_RX);
> > > > > > -out:
> > > > > >       serial8250_rpm_put(up);
> > > > > >       return status;
> > > > >
> > > > > Not a problem that originates from you, but IMO calling this variable
> > > > > "status" is quite misleading when it is the character (or NO_POLL_CHAR
> > > > > is no character is present).
> > > > >
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >  static void serial8250_put_poll_char(struct uart_port *port,
> > > > > >                        unsigned char c)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > @@ -2264,13 +2260,17 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >        * Clear the FIFO buffers and disable them.
> > > > > >        * (they will be reenabled in set_termios())
> > > > > >        */
> > > > > > +     uart_port_lock_irqsave(port, &flags);
> > > > > >       serial8250_clear_fifos(up);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       /*
> > > > > > -      * Clear the interrupt registers.
> > > > > > +      * Read UART_RX to clear interrupts (e.g., Character Timeout).
> > > > > > +      * No data on UART_IIR_RX_TIMEOUT, UART_LSR_DR won't set.
> > > > > > +      * FIFO disabled, read UART_RX without LSR check, no PSLVERR.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand what the last two lines mean and I don't see the
> > > > > connection to the code that is below the comment either, could you try to
> > > > > rephrase the comment.
> > > >
> > > > The original intention was to check UART_LSR_DR first when reading
> > > > UART_RX. However, the purpose of serial_port_in(port, UART_RX) here is
> > > > to clear the interrupt, such as the interrupt caused by RX_TIMEOUT.
> > >
> > > I understood the first sentence in the comment but the rest of it is very
> > > cryptic and has many grammar issues too. Also, the extent of passive voice
> > > there makes it hard to know who does what (UART / kernel).
> > >
> > > > The logic for clearing the interrupt in the interrupt handling
> > > > function of RX_TIMEOUT is !UART_LSR_DR. And to avoid PSLVERR, we need
> > > > to check UART_LSR_DR first. To meet the requirements of both, the FIFO
> > > > needs to be disabled.
> > >
> > > The grammar is so broken, it failed to convey that message.
> >
> > The purpose of serial_port_in(port, UART_RX) is to clear interrupts
> > such as rx_timeout. In dw8250_handle_irq(), serial_port_in(p, UART_RX)
> > is called when the LSR does not have the UART_LSR_DR bit set.
> >
> > To avoid PSLVERR when the FIFO is enabled, serial_in(up, UART_RX)
> > should be called only when the LSR has the UART_LSR_DR bit set.
> >
> > These two logics are clearly contradictory. Therefore, both
> > serial8250_clear_fifos() and serial_port_in(port, UART_RX) are placed
> > under the protection of port->lock.
> >
> > If you believe this is not a potential issue, that's fine. I can
> > remove this patch in the next patchset version.
>
> No, my goal is not to get this removed from the patch series.
>
> I meant that the comment wording needs to be fixed for the next version
> such that it is understandable for those that are not deeply familiar with
> what is related to PSLVERR. Currently even I struggle to follow what's
> written into that comment (unless I read heavily between lines and base
> guesses on the extra knowledge I've about how this entire patchset relates
> to PSLVERR).
>

I plan to change the commit message as follows:
When the PSLVERR_RESP_EN parameter is set to 1, reading UART_RX while
the FIFO is enabled and UART_LSR_DR is not set will generate a PSLVERR
error.
Failure to check the UART_LSR_DR before reading UART_RX, or the non -
atomic nature of clearing the FIFO and reading UART_RX, poses
potential risks that could lead to PSLVERR.
PSLVERR is addressed through two methods. One is to introduce
serial8250_discard_data() to check whether UART_LSR_DR is set before
reading UART_RX, thus solving the PSLVERR issue when the FIFO is
enabled. The other is to place FIFO clearing and reading of UART_RX
under port->lock.


The comment here will be changed as follows:
To prevent PSLVERR, we can either disable the FIFO before reading
UART_RX or read UART_RX only when UART_LSR_DR is set while the FIFO
remains enabled. If using the latter approach to avoid PSLVERR, it
creates a contradiction with the interrupt - clearing (see the
rx_timeout handling in dw8250_handle_irq()).

What do you think?

> > > > Therefore, we should put serial8250_clear_fifos() and the execution of
> > > > serial_port_in(port, UART_RX) without checking UART_LSR_DR under the
> > > > port->lock.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >        */
> > > > > >       serial_port_in(port, UART_LSR);
> > > > > >       serial_port_in(port, UART_RX);
> > > > > > +     uart_port_unlock_irqrestore(port, flags);
> > > > > >       serial_port_in(port, UART_IIR);
> > > > > >       serial_port_in(port, UART_MSR);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -2429,15 +2429,14 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >       }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  dont_test_tx_en:
> > > > > > -     uart_port_unlock_irqrestore(port, flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       /*
> > > > > >        * Clear the interrupt registers again for luck, and clear the
> > > > > >        * saved flags to avoid getting false values from polling
> > > > > >        * routines or the previous session.
> > > > > >        */
> > > > > > -     serial_port_in(port, UART_LSR);
> > > > > > -     serial_port_in(port, UART_RX);
> > > > > > +     serial8250_discard_data(up);
> > > > > > +     uart_port_unlock_irqrestore(port, flags);
> > > > > >       serial_port_in(port, UART_IIR);
> > > > > >       serial_port_in(port, UART_MSR);
> > > > > >       up->lsr_saved_flags = 0;
> > > > > > @@ -2519,7 +2518,6 @@ void serial8250_do_shutdown(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >               port->mctrl &= ~TIOCM_OUT2;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       serial8250_set_mctrl(port, port->mctrl);
> > > > > > -     uart_port_unlock_irqrestore(port, flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       /*
> > > > > >        * Disable break condition and FIFOs
> > > > > > @@ -2527,6 +2525,14 @@ void serial8250_do_shutdown(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >       serial_port_out(port, UART_LCR,
> > > > > >                       serial_port_in(port, UART_LCR) & ~UART_LCR_SBC);
> > > > > >       serial8250_clear_fifos(up);
> > > > > > +     /*
> > > > > > +      * Read data port to reset things, and then unlink from
> > > > > > +      * the IRQ chain.
> > > > > > +      * Since reading UART_RX clears interrupts, doing so with
> > > > > > +      * FIFO disabled won't trigger PSLVERR.
> > > > > > +      */
> > > > > > +     serial_port_in(port, UART_RX);
> > > > > > +     uart_port_unlock_irqrestore(port, flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_RSA
> > > > > >       /*
> > > > > > @@ -2535,11 +2541,6 @@ void serial8250_do_shutdown(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > > >       disable_rsa(up);
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -     /*
> > > > > > -      * Read data port to reset things, and then unlink from
> > > > > > -      * the IRQ chain.
> > > > > > -      */
> > > > > > -     serial_port_in(port, UART_RX);
> > > > > >       serial8250_rpm_put(up);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       up->ops->release_irq(up);
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >  i.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yunhui
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >  i.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yunhui
> >
>
> --
>  i.

Thanks,
Yunhui

Powered by blists - more mailing lists