Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-169662-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 12:20:29 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>,
	Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
	Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri <punnaiah.choudary.kalluri@xilinx.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@nxp.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/20] EDAC/synopsys: Fix ECC status data and IRQ
 disable race condition
Message-ID: <20240506102029.GGZjiu7TKP9FVp-2Sb@fat_crate.local>
References: <20240222181324.28242-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
 <20240222181324.28242-2-fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
 <20240415183616.GDZh1zoFsBzvAEduRo@fat_crate.local>
 <szcie4giwjykne4su6uu5wsmtsl3e3jd53rjfiwir6hm3ju7as@6eqh2xmj35ie>
 <20240421100712.GAZiTlUOm1hrLQvaMi@fat_crate.local>
 <whgp2xx4dv3szezz3bvmgutgazz6kvie3q7rgpr35zqzuzsygk@wppqzusteru4>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <whgp2xx4dv3szezz3bvmgutgazz6kvie3q7rgpr35zqzuzsygk@wppqzusteru4>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 03:52:38PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> Even if we get to add the spin-lock serializing the ECCCLR writes it
> won't solve the problem since the IRQ-disabler critical section could
> be executed a bit before the IRQ-handler critical section so the later
> one will just re-enable the IRQs disabled by the former one.
> 
> Here is what is suggested in my patch to fix the problem:
> 
>      IRQ-handler                        |    IRQ-disabler
>                                         |
> zynqmp_get_error_info:                  |
>                                         | lock_irqsave
>                                         | ECCCLR = 0; // disable IRQs
>                                         | unlock_irqrestore
>  lock_irqsave;                          |
>  tmp = ECCCLR | clear_sts_bits;         |
>  ECCCLR = tmp;                          |
>  unlock_irqrestore;                     |

<--- I'm presuming here the IRQ-disabler will reenable interrupts at
some point?

Otherwise we have the same problem as before when interrupts remain off
after the IRQ handler has run.

Other than that, yes, I see it, we will need the locking.

Thanks for elaborating.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette