linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 4/5] arm64: apei: implement arch_apei_get_mem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:45:20 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>,
	"fu.wei@...aro.org" <fu.wei@...aro.org>,
	"al.stone@...aro.org" <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/5] arm64: apei: implement
 arch_apei_get_mem_attributes()

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:38:11AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 17:26 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:21:49PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:59:19PM +0100, Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > > > +static inline pgprot_t arch_apei_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	pgprot_t prot;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	prot = efi_mem_attributes(addr);
> > > > > +	if (prot & EFI_MEMORY_UC)
> > > > > +		return PROT_DEVICE_nGnRnE;
> > > > > +	if (prot & EFI_MEMORY_WC)
> > > > > +		return PROT_NORMAL_NC;
> > > > 
> > > > Can we not use pgprot_noncached and pgprot_writecombine for these two?
> > > 
> > > Actually, why do we even use pgprot_t for prot here? EFI_MEMORY_* don't
> > > have anything to do with the arch-specific pgprot_t.
> > 
> > Good point; the pgprot_t confused me, so my suggestion is much use after
> > ll. We're better off with a u64 to avoid further confusion.
> 
> Isn't the whole point of arch_apei_get_mem_attribute() to turn an
> arch-independent memory attribute (EFI_MEMORY_*) into an arch-specific
> value to pass to ioremap_page_range()?

That bit's fine. The weird bit is:

  pgprot_t prot;

  prot = efi_mem_attributes(addr);

Since that's putting the arch-independent format into the pg_prot.

> I don't see how you can do that any other way than by using pgprot_t.
> 
> Really, the problem here is that ioremap_page_caller() has no notion of
> "map this range in a firmware-compatible manner". If we could do, for
> example,
> 
> 	ioremap_page_range(vaddr, vend, paddr, PAGE_FW_COMPAT);
> 
> that would allow the innards of the arch-ioremap to figure out exactly
> how to map this range so that the firmware could access it coherently.
> 
> I suggested this previously but it didn't gain any traction.

Yeah, or just ioremap_efi.

</me runs away>

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/