mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@quicinc.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
	Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@kernel.org>,
	<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <ath11k@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wifi: ath11k: fix dest ring-buffer corruption
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:16:32 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0df9dde2-c713-46a2-a4fc-4b033586a524@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aD_utNk4q23ewRAC@hovoldconsulting.com>



On 6/4/2025 2:59 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:16:23AM +0800, Baochen Qiang wrote:
>> On 6/3/2025 7:51 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:52:37PM +0800, Baochen Qiang wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2025 4:03 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No, the barrier is needed between reading the head pointer and accessing
>>>>> descriptor fields, that's what matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can still end up with reading stale descriptor data even when
>>>>> ath11k_hal_srng_dst_get_next_entry() returns non-NULL due to speculation
>>>>> (that's what happens on the X13s).
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that a dma_rmb() does not even prevent speculation, no matter where it is
>>>> placed, right?
>>>
>>> It prevents the speculated load from being used.
>>
>> Sorry, still not get it. To my knowledge whether the speculated load (steps 3 and 4) would
>> get used depends on whether the condition check pass in step 2. How does a dma_rmb() make
>> any difference in this process?
> 
> It orders the two loads from the device so that the descriptor is not
> (speculatively) loaded before the head pointer.

I was thinking we need barrier_nospec() here to prevent speculatively load, instead of (or
in addition to) dma_rmb().

But, seems I was wrong. Even the kernel doc [1] talks about the ordering brought by dma_rmb()

	if (desc->status != DEVICE_OWN) {
		/* do not read data until we own descriptor */
		dma_rmb();

		/* read/modify data */
		read_data = desc->data;
		[...]
	}

     The dma_rmb() allows us to guarantee that the device has released ownership
     before we read the data from the descriptor

So a single dma_rmb() should be enough.

> 
> When the CPU sees the updated head pointer it may otherwise proceed with
> using stale descriptor data. The barrier prevents this.
> 
> Johan

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt


  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-05  8:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-26 11:48 [PATCH 0/3] " Johan Hovold
2025-05-26 11:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Johan Hovold
2025-05-29  7:03   ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-02  8:03     ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-03 10:52       ` Baochen Qiang
2025-06-03 11:51         ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-04  2:16           ` Baochen Qiang
2025-06-04  6:59             ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-05  8:16               ` Baochen Qiang [this message]
2025-06-04  2:34           ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-04  5:32             ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-04  7:06               ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-04  7:57                 ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-04  8:07                   ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-04  8:18                     ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-04 16:24             ` Jeff Johnson
2025-06-05  4:01               ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-05 10:17                 ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-05 10:54                   ` Baochen Qiang
2025-06-06  0:52                     ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-06  2:02                       ` Baochen Qiang
2025-06-06  7:43                         ` Miaoqing Pan
2025-06-25  2:06   ` Baochen Qiang
2025-06-25  9:34     ` Johan Hovold
2025-05-26 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] wifi: ath11k: use plain access for descriptor length Johan Hovold
2025-05-26 11:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] wifi: ath11k: use plain accesses for monitor descriptor Johan Hovold

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0df9dde2-c713-46a2-a4fc-4b033586a524@quicinc.com \
    --to=quic_bqiang@quicinc.com \
    --cc=ath11k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=jjohnson@kernel.org \
    --cc=johan+linaro@kernel.org \
    --cc=johan@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®