Hi!

> > > > > commit 47705c08465931923e2f2b506986ca0bdf80380d upstream.
> > > > >
> > > > > When clearing up the channel context after client drivers are
> > > > > done using channels, the configuration is currently not being
> > > > > reset entirely. Ensure this is done to appropriately handle
> > > > > issues where clients unaware of the context state end up calling
> > > > > functions which expect a context.
> > > > 
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/init.c
> > > > > @@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ void mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt(struct mhi_con
> > > > > +	u32 tmp;
> > > > > @@ -554,7 +555,19 @@ void mhi_deinit_chan_ctxt(struct mhi_con
> > > > ...
> > > > > +	tmp = chan_ctxt->chcfg;
> > > > > +	tmp &= ~CHAN_CTX_CHSTATE_MASK;
> > > > > +	tmp |= (MHI_CH_STATE_DISABLED << CHAN_CTX_CHSTATE_SHIFT);
> > > > > +	chan_ctxt->chcfg = tmp;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Update to all cores */
> > > > > +	smp_wmb();
> > > > >  }
> > > > 
> > > > This is really interesting code; author was careful to make sure chcfg
> > > > is updated atomically, but C compiler is free to undo that. Plus, this
> > > > will make all kinds of checkers angry.
> > > > 
> > > > Does the file need to use READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for looking into this.
> > > 
> > > I agree that the order could be mangled between chcfg read & write and
> > > using READ_ONCE & WRITE_ONCE seems to be a good option.
> > > 
> > > Bhaumik, can you please submit a patch and tag stable?

> > Hemant and I went over this patch and we noticed this particular function is
> > already being called with the channel mutex lock held. This would take care
> > of
> > the atomicity and we also probably don't need the smp_wmb() barrier as the
> > mutex
> > unlock will implicitly take care of it.
> > 
> 
> okay
> 
> > To the point of compiler re-ordering, we would need some help to understand
> > the
> > purpose of READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for these dependent statements:
> > 
> > > +	tmp = chan_ctxt->chcfg;
> > > +	tmp &= ~CHAN_CTX_CHSTATE_MASK;
> > > +	tmp |= (MHI_CH_STATE_DISABLED << CHAN_CTX_CHSTATE_SHIFT);
> > > +	chan_ctxt->chcfg = tmp;
> > 
> > Since RMW operation means that the chan_ctxt->chcfg is copied to a local
> > variable (tmp) and the _same_ is being written back to chan_ctxt->chcfg, can
> > compiler reorder these dependent statements and cause a different result?
> > 
> 
> Well, I agree that there is a minimal guarantee with modern day CPUs on
> not breaking the order of dependent memory accesses (like here tmp
> variable is the one which gets read and written) but we want to make
> sure that this won't break on future CPUs as well. So IMO using
> READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE adds extra level of safety.

Umm, if this is protected by locking, already, we really should not
add READ_ONCE. Code should be clear, not having "extra safety levels".

I assumed it was running unlocked due to the way it was written.

Best regards,
    	       	    	      	     	 	       	      Pavel
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany