From: srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org (Srinivas Kandagatla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Add range check in _regmap_raw_read()
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:12:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54EC408B.60209@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150224085524.GC6236@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
On 24/02/15 08:55, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:02:03PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>> The culprit was in my test code, which I eventually fixed. However I would
>> have expected regmap to do some out of bound check before it tries to access
>> the register space.
>
>> If I try to do an out of bound access via regmap_read()/write() it throws up
>> an error, which is not the same with regmap_bulk_read/write() apis.
>
>> I was lucky that I got a page fault as the register range was just at page
>> boundary, but in cases where the range is not at page boundary, Its highly
>> likely that it could silently corrupt other memory location( specially in
>> write cases).
>
> The risk of page faults mostly only applies to memory mapped register
> maps - most register maps are on other buses where things are a bit less
> clear, we do often have writes to undocumented registers which aren't
Yes, my test was on memory mapped registers.
> included in the readability checks (indeed it's rare for anything to
> actually give us writability information for the write side). As
> covered in earlier messages a part of this is a performance tradeoff,
> it's potentially expensive for us to do the checks on bulk I/O but for
> single register access it's much cheaper relative to the operation as a
> whole.
I totally agree with you on the performance overhead of checking every
read/write, But on the other hand adding a single range check is better
than no check with less/nil performance overhead.
>
> It's particularly interesting for MMIO actually as these devices are by
> far the most performance intensive, we don't have all the costs of the
> bus to mask what regmap is doing.
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Add range check in _regmap_raw_read()
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:12:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54EC408B.60209@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150224085524.GC6236@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
On 24/02/15 08:55, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:02:03PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>> The culprit was in my test code, which I eventually fixed. However I would
>> have expected regmap to do some out of bound check before it tries to access
>> the register space.
>
>> If I try to do an out of bound access via regmap_read()/write() it throws up
>> an error, which is not the same with regmap_bulk_read/write() apis.
>
>> I was lucky that I got a page fault as the register range was just at page
>> boundary, but in cases where the range is not at page boundary, Its highly
>> likely that it could silently corrupt other memory location( specially in
>> write cases).
>
> The risk of page faults mostly only applies to memory mapped register
> maps - most register maps are on other buses where things are a bit less
> clear, we do often have writes to undocumented registers which aren't
Yes, my test was on memory mapped registers.
> included in the readability checks (indeed it's rare for anything to
> actually give us writability information for the write side). As
> covered in earlier messages a part of this is a performance tradeoff,
> it's potentially expensive for us to do the checks on bulk I/O but for
> single register access it's much cheaper relative to the operation as a
> whole.
I totally agree with you on the performance overhead of checking every
read/write, But on the other hand adding a single range check is better
than no check with less/nil performance overhead.
>
> It's particularly interesting for MMIO actually as these devices are by
> far the most performance intensive, we don't have all the costs of the
> bus to mask what regmap is doing.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-24 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-19 8:39 [PATCH 0/2] regmap: fix range checks in _regmap_raw_read/write() Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 8:39 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 8:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Add range check in _regmap_raw_read() Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 8:40 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 10:27 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 10:27 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 11:04 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 11:04 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 12:21 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 12:21 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 13:02 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 13:02 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-24 8:55 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-24 8:55 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-24 9:12 ` Srinivas Kandagatla [this message]
2015-02-24 9:12 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] regmap: Add range check in _regmap_raw_write() Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 8:40 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 10:31 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 10:31 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 11:11 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 11:11 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-19 11:55 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-19 11:55 ` Mark Brown
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=54EC408B.60209@linaro.org \
--to=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.