Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net v1] igc: fix race condition in TX timestamp read for register 0

[Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>]

On 18/09/2025 23:10, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/18/2025 1:47 PM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>> On 18/09/2025 19:38, Chwee-Lin Choong wrote:
>>> The current HW bug workaround checks the TXTT_0 ready bit first,
>>> then reads LOW -> HIGH -> LOW from register 0 to detect if a
>>> timestamp was captured.
>>>
>>> This sequence has a race: if a new timestamp is latched after
>>> reading the TXTT mask but before the first LOW read, both old
>>> and new timestamp match, causing the driver to drop a valid
>>> timestamp.
>>>
>>> Fix by reading the LOW register first, then the TXTT mask,
>>> so a newly latched timestamp will always be detected.
>>>
>>> This fix also prevents TX unit hangs observed under heavy
>>> timestamping load.
>>>
>>> Fixes: c789ad7cbebc ("igc: Work around HW bug causing missing timestamps")
>>> Suggested-by: Avi Shalev <avi.shalev@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Song Yoong Siang <yoong.siang.song@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chwee-Lin Choong <chwee.lin.choong@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_ptp.c | 10 ++++++++--
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>    		 * timestamp was captured, we can read the "high"
>>>    		 * register again.
>>>    		 */
>>
>> This comment begins with 'read the "high" register (to latch a new
>> timestamp)' ...
>>
>>> -		u32 txstmpl_old, txstmpl_new;
>>> +		u32 txstmpl_new;
>>>    
>>> -		txstmpl_old = rd32(IGC_TXSTMPL);
>>>    		rd32(IGC_TXSTMPH);
>>>    		txstmpl_new = rd32(IGC_TXSTMPL);
>>
>> and a couple of lines later in this function you have
>>
>> 		regval = txstmpl_new;
>> 		regval |= (u64)rd32(IGC_TXSTMPH) << 32;
>>
>> According to the comment above, the value in the register will be
>> latched after reading IGC_TXSTMPH. As there will be no read of "low"
>> part of the register, it will stay latched with old value until the
>> next call to the same function. Could it be the reason of unit hangs?
>>
>> It looks like the value of previous read of IGC_TXSTMPH should be stored
>> and used to construct new timestamp, right?
>>
> 
> I wouldn't trust the comment, but instead double check the data sheets.
> Unfortunately, I don't seem to have a copy of the igc hardware data
> sheet handy :(

Well, if the register is not latched, the usual pattern of reading
high->low->high should be applied to avoid overflow scenario, but I
don't see it in neither original, nor updated code. So I would assume
the comment is correct. But I totally agree, data sheet would be proper
source of truth.