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;
Message-ID: <6df5a17bb1c900dc69b991171e55632f40d9426f.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] edac: add support for Amazon's Annapurna Labs EDAC
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@amazon.com>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        "paulmck@linux.ibm.com" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        "mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "nicolas.ferre@microchip.com" <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@amazon.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Chocron, Jonathan" <jonnyc@amazon.com>,
        "Krupnik, Ronen" <ronenk@amazon.com>,
        "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Hanoch, Uri" <hanochu@amazon.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:25:52 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20190611115651.GD31772@zn.tnic>
References: <1559211329-13098-3-git-send-email-hhhawa@amazon.com>
         <DB09EE2A-7397-4063-B925-66658D0105A5@alien8.de>
         <bfbc12fb68eea9d8d4cc257c213393fd4e92c33a.camel@amazon.com>
         <20190531051400.GA2275@cz.tnic>
         <ce01a2bc-7973-5978-b033-a6bdc61b9d4b@amazon.com>
         <32431fa2-2285-6c41-ce32-09630205bb54@arm.com>
         <9a2aaf4a9545ed30568a0613e64bc3f57f047799.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
         <20190608090556.GA32464@zn.tnic>
         <1ae5e7a3464f9d8e16b112cd371957ea20472864.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
         <68446361fd1e742b284555b96b638fe6b5218b8b.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
         <20190611115651.GD31772@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 13:56 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:21:39PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > So looking again ... all the registration/removal of edac devices seem
> > to already be protected by mutexes, so that's not a problem.
> > 
> > Tell me more about what specific races you think we might have here,
> > I'm not sure I follow...
> 
> Well, as I said "it might work or it might set your cat on fire." For
> example, one of the error logging paths is edac_mc_handle_error() and
> that thing mostly operates using the *mci pointer which should be ok
> but then it calls the "trace_mc_event" tracepoint and I'd suppose that
> tracepoints can do lockless but I'm not sure.

Yes, we would be in a world of pain already if tracepoints couldn't
handle concurrency :-)

> So what needs to happen is for paths which weren't called by multiple
> EDAC agents in parallel but need to get called in parallel now due to
> ARM drivers wanting to do that, to get audited that they're safe.

That's the thing, I don't think we have such path. We are talking about
having separate L1/L2 vs. MC drivers, they don't overlap.

> Situation is easy if you have one platform driver where you can
> synchronize things in the driver but since you guys need to do separate
> drivers for whatever reason, then that would need to be done prior.
> 
> Makes more sense?

Sort-of... I still don't see a race in what we propose but I might be
missing something subtle. We are talking about two drivers for two
different IP blocks updating different counters etc...

Cheers,
Ben.