From: Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@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: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:57:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79b4bac1-6e55-408c-a334-006eded4229f@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aD_wgACEfm1_1GNz@hovoldconsulting.com>
On 6/4/2025 3:06 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 01:32:08PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote:
>> On 6/4/2025 10:34 AM, Miaoqing Pan 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.
>>>>
>>>>> If so the whole point of dma_rmb() is to prevent from compiler
>>>>> reordering
>>>>> or CPU reordering, but is it really possible?
>>>>>
>>>>> The sequence is
>>>>>
>>>>> 1# reading HP
>>>>> srng->u.dst_ring.cached_hp = READ_ONCE(*srng-
>>>>>> u.dst_ring.hp_addr);
>>>>>
>>>>> 2# validate HP
>>>>> if (srng->u.dst_ring.tp == srng->u.dst_ring.cached_hp)
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>> 3# get desc
>>>>> desc = srng->ring_base_vaddr + srng->u.dst_ring.tp;
>>>>>
>>>>> 4# accessing desc
>>>>> ath11k_hal_desc_reo_parse_err(... desc, ...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly each step depends on the results of previous steps. In this
>>>>> case the compiler/CPU
>>>>> is expected to be smart enough to not do any reordering, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Steps 3 and 4 can be done speculatively before the load in step 1 is
>>>> complete as long as the result is discarded if it turns out not to be
>>>> needed.
>
>>> If the condition in step 2 is true and step 3 speculatively loads
>>> descriptor from TP before step 1, could this cause issues?
>>
>> Sorry for typo, if the condition in step 2 is false and step 3
>> speculatively loads descriptor from TP before step 1, could this cause
>> issues?
>
> Almost correct; the descriptor can be loaded (from TP) before the head
> pointer is loaded and thus before the condition in step 2 has been
> evaluated. And if the condition in step 2 later turns out to be false,
> step 4 may use stale data from before the head pointer was updated.
>
Actually, there's a missing step between step 3 and step 4: TP+1.
TP+1:
srng->u.dst_ring.tp += srng->entry_size
TP is managed by the CPU and points to the current first unprocessed
descriptor, while HP and the descriptor are asynchronously updated by
DMA. So are you saying that the descriptor obtained through speculative
loading has not yet been updated, or is in the process of being updated?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-04 7:58 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
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 [this message]
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=79b4bac1-6e55-408c-a334-006eded4229f@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_miaoqing@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_bqiang@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®