| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <575FEFF1.9020105@semihalf.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:52:17 +0200
From: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
To: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@...wei.com>, Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>
Cc: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
okaya@...eaurora.org, Jayachandran C <jchandra@...adcom.com>,
robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Andrea Gallo <andrea.gallo@...aro.org>, jeremy.linton@....com,
Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>,
"Chenxin (Charles)" <charles.chenxin@...wei.com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
"liudong-1989@....com" <liudong-1989@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors
against platfrom specific ECAM quirks
On 14.06.2016 11:45, Dongdong Liu wrote:
> Hi Duc
>
> 在 2016/6/14 17:00, Duc Dang 写道:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Dongdong Liu
>> <liudongdong3@...wei.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Duc
>>>
>>> 在 2016/6/14 4:57, Duc Dang 写道:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Christopher Covington
>>>> <cov@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dongdong,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/13/2016 09:02 AM, Dongdong Liu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
>>>>>> index d3c3e85..49612b3 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
>>>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@
>>>>>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/pci.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/pci-acpi.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/pci-ecam.h>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* Root pointer to the mapped MCFG table */
>>>>>> +static struct acpi_table_mcfg *mcfg_table;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Structure to hold entries from the MCFG table */
>>>>>> struct mcfg_entry {
>>>>>> @@ -35,6 +39,38 @@ struct mcfg_entry {
>>>>>> /* List to save mcfg entries */
>>>>>> static LIST_HEAD(pci_mcfg_list);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +extern struct pci_cfg_fixup __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups[];
>>>>>> +extern struct pci_cfg_fixup __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups[];
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_mcfg_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + int bus_num = root->secondary.start;
>>>>>> + int domain = root->segment;
>>>>>> + struct pci_cfg_fixup *f;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!mcfg_table)
>>>>>> + return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Match against platform specific quirks and return
>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>> + * CAM ops.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * First match against PCI topology <domain:bus> then use
>>>>>> OEM ID
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> + * OEM revision from MCFG table standard header.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + for (f = __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f < __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups;
>>>>>> f++) {
>>>>>> + if ((f->domain == domain || f->domain ==
>>>>>> PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY) &&
>>>>>> + (f->bus_num == bus_num || f->bus_num ==
>>>>>> PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY) &&
>>>>>> + (!strncmp(f->oem_id, mcfg_table->header.oem_id,
>>>>>> + ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE)) &&
>>>>>> + (!strncmp(f->oem_table_id,
>>>>>> mcfg_table->header.oem_table_id,
>>>>>> + ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID_SIZE)))
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would just be a small convenience, but if the character count
>>>>> used
>>>>> here were
>>>>>
>>>>> min(strlen(f->oem_id), ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE)
>>>>>
>>>>> then the parameters to DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP macro could be
>>>>> substrings
>>>>> and
>>>>> wouldn't need to be padded out to the full length.
>>>>>
>>>>>> + return f->ops;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + /* No quirks, use ECAM */
>>>>>> + return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
>>>>>> index 7d63a66..088a1da 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
>>>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ static inline acpi_status
>>>>>> pci_acpi_remove_pm_notifier(struct acpi_device *dev)
>>>>>> extern phys_addr_t acpi_pci_root_get_mcfg_addr(acpi_handle
>>>>>> handle);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> extern phys_addr_t pci_mcfg_lookup(u16 domain, struct resource
>>>>>> *bus_res);
>>>>>> +extern struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_mcfg_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root
>>>>>> *root);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static inline acpi_handle acpi_find_root_bridge_handle(struct
>>>>>> pci_dev
>>>>>> *pdev)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> @@ -72,6 +73,25 @@ struct acpi_pci_root_ops {
>>>>>> int (*prepare_resources)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +struct pci_cfg_fixup {
>>>>>> + struct pci_ecam_ops *ops;
>>>>>> + char *oem_id;
>>>>>> + char *oem_table_id;
>>>>>> + int domain;
>>>>>> + int bus_num;
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY -1
>>>>>> +#define PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY -1
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* Designate a routine to fix up buggy MCFG */
>>>>>> +#define DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(ops, oem_id, oem_table_id, dom,
>>>>>> bus) \
>>>>>> + static const struct
>>>>>> pci_cfg_fixup \
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> __mcfg_fixup_##oem_id##oem_table_id##dom##bus \
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not entirely sure that this is the right fix--I'm pretty blindly
>>>>> following a GCC documentation suggestion [1]--but removing the
>>>>> first two
>>>>> preprocessor concatenation operators "##" solved the following build
>>>>> error
>>>>> for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> include/linux/pci-acpi.h:90:2: error: pasting "__mcfg_fixup_" and
>>>>> ""QCOM"" does not give a valid preprocessing token
>>>>> __mcfg_fixup_##oem_id##oem_table_id##dom##bus \
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem is gcc is not happy with quoted string when
>>>> processing these tokens
>>>> (""QCOM"", the extra "" are added by gcc). So should we not concat
>>>> string tokens and
>>>> use the fixup definition in v1 of this RFC:
>>>> /* Designate a routine to fix up buggy MCFG */
>>>> #define DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(ops, oem_id, rev, dom,
>>>> bus) \
>>>> static const struct pci_cfg_fixup
>>>> __mcfg_fixup_##system##dom##bus\
>>>> __used
>>>> __attribute__((__section__(".acpi_fixup_mcfg"), \
>>>> aligned((sizeof(void *)))))
>>>> = \
>>>> { ops, oem_id, rev, dom, bus };
>>>
>>>
>>> V1 fixup exist the redefinition error when compiling mutiple
>>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP
>>> with the same PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY and PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY.
>>>
>>> #define EFI_ACPI_HISI_OEM_ID "HISI"
>>> #define EFI_ACPI_HISI_D02_OEM_TABLE_ID "HISI-D02"
>>> #define EFI_ACPI_HISI_D03_OEM_TABLE_ID "HISI-D03"
>>>
>>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(&hisi_pcie_ecam_ops, EFI_ACPI_HISI_OEM_ID,
>>> EFI_ACPI_HISI_D02_OEM_TABLE_ID, PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY,
>>> PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY);
>>>
>>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(&hisi_pcie_ecam_ops, EFI_ACPI_HISI_OEM_ID,
>>> EFI_ACPI_HISI_D03_OEM_TABLE_ID, PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY,
>>> PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY);
>>>
>>> In file included from drivers/pci/host/pcie-hisi-acpi.c:15:0:
>>> include/linux/pci-acpi.h:98:43: error: redefinition of
>>> '__mcfg_fixup_systemPCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANYPCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY'
>>> static const struct pci_cfg_fixup
>>> __mcfg_fixup_##system##dom##bus\
>>> ^
>>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-hisi-acpi.c:215:1: note: in expansion of macro
>>> 'DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP'
>>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(&hisi_pcie_ecam_ops, EFI_ACPI_HISI_OEM_ID,
>>> ^
>>> include/linux/pci-acpi.h:98:43: note: previous definition of
>>> '__mcfg_fixup_systemPCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANYPCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY' was here
>>> static const struct pci_cfg_fixup
>>> __mcfg_fixup_##system##dom##bus\
>>> ^
>>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-hisi-acpi.c:212:1: note: in expansion of macro
>>> 'DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP'
>>>
>>>
>>> V2 fixup can resolve the redefinition error, but need to use macro.
>>> We can see that the name of macro is not replace with it's value in
>>> "__mcfg_fixup_EFI_ACPI_HISI_OEM_IDEFI_ACPI_HISI_D03_OEM_TABLE_IDPCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANYPCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY".
>>>
>>>
>>> Any good idea is appreciated.
>> Hmmm.
>>
>> I was testing # op and using min_t to get the min-len when doing
>> strncmp similar to Chris' suggestion (using min_t avoids type
>> warnings)
>>
>> /* Designate a routine to fix up buggy MCFG */
>> #define DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(ops, oem_id, oem_table_id, rev, dom,
>> bus) \
>> static const struct pci_cfg_fixup
>> __mcfg_fixup##oem_id##oem_table_id##rev##dom##bus\
>> __used
>> __attribute__((__section__(".acpi_fixup_mcfg"), \
>> aligned((sizeof(void *)))))
>> = \
>
>> { ops, #oem_id, #oem_table_id, rev, dom, bus };
>
>
> This should change to { ops, oem_id, oem_table_id, rev, dom, bus };
> ‘#’ is not need.
Both solutions are OK.
1. This works when we use macros as OEM ID and OEM table ID:
#define DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(ops, oem_id, oem_table_id, rev, dom, bus)\
static const struct pci_cfg_fixup \
__mcfg_fixup_##oem_id##oem_table_id##dom##bus \
__used __attribute__((__section__(".acpi_fixup_mcfg"), \
aligned((sizeof(void *))))) = \
{ ops, oem_id, oem_table_id, rev, dom, bus };
#define OEM_ID "XXXXXX"
#define OEM_TABLE_ID "YYYYYYYY"
DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(&quirk_ops, OEM_ID, OEM_TABLE_ID, 1,
PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY, PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY);
2. This works w/o macro which means we need to define OEM ID and OEM as
string w/o quotation marks:
#define DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(ops, oem_id, oem_table_id, rev, dom, bus)\
static const struct pci_cfg_fixup \
__mcfg_fixup_##oem_id##oem_table_id##dom##bus \
__used __attribute__((__section__(".acpi_fixup_mcfg"), \
aligned((sizeof(void *))))) = \
{ ops, #oem_id, #oem_table_id, rev, dom, bus };
DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(&quirk_ops, XXXXXX, YYYYYYYY, 1,
PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY, PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY);
Personally I think that (2) is better, no need for macro definitions.
Tomasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists