Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
cc:     Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
        libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matt Sealey <neko@bakuhatsu.net>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on
 arm64
In-Reply-To: <20180808142852.GD24736@iMac.local>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808081437260.18198@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808021242320.31834@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <CAHCPf3tFGqkYEcWNN4LaWThw_rVqT316pzLv6T7RfxwO-eZ0EA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808030212340.17672@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8DeuksZhk1g3q_msSKV_hSY_2e1uzVten9-oGO3j9Sqg@mail.gmail.com> <20180803094129.GB17798@arm.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808031235410.31584@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <20180808113927.GA24736@iMac.local>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808081011110.9997@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <20180808142852.GD24736@iMac.local>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:12:27AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:09:02PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > 	while (1) {
> > > > 		start = (unsigned)random() % (LEN + 1);
> > > > 		end = (unsigned)random() % (LEN + 1);
> > > > 		if (start > end)
> > > > 			continue;
> > > > 		for (i = start; i < end; i++)
> > > > 			data[i] = val++;
> > > > 		memcpy(map + start, data + start, end - start);
> > > > 		if (memcmp(map, data, LEN)) {
> > > 
> > > It may be worth trying to do a memcmp(map+start, data+start, end-start)
> > > here to see whether the hazard logic fails when the writes are unaligned
> > > but the reads are not.
> > > 
> > > This problem may as well appear if you do byte writes and read longs
> > > back (and I consider this a hardware problem on this specific board).
> > 
> > I triad to insert usleep(10000) between the memcpy and memcmp, but the 
> > same corruption occurs. So, it can't be read-after-write hazard. It is 
> > caused by the improper handling of hazard between the overlapping writes 
> > inside memcpy.
> 
> It could get it wrong between subsequent writes to the same 64-bit range
> (e.g. the address & ~63 is the same but the data strobes for which bytes
> to write are different). If it somehow thinks that it's a
> write-after-write hazard even though the strobes are different, it could
> cancel one of the writes.

I believe that the SoC has logic for write-after-write detection, but the 
logic is broken and corrupts data.

If I insert "dmb sy" between the overlapping writes, there's no corruption 
(the PCIe controller won't see any overlapping writes in that case).

> It may be worth trying with a byte-only memcpy() function while keeping
> the default memcmp().

I tried that and byte-only memcpy works without any corruption.

> -- 
> Catalin

Mikulas