linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] iwlwifi: Load firmware exclusively for Intel WiFi

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:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 15:29:52 +0800
From:   Matt Chen <mattsled@...il.com>
To:     kai.heng.feng@...onical.com
Cc:     luciano.coelho@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        johannes.berg@...el.com,
        "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        linuxwifi@...el.com, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iwlwifi: Load firmware exclusively for Intel WiFi

I think Canonical were facing some wifi fw load error from some 8260
earlier module during the BT still loading the fw.
I believe we had later 8260 sku that fixed this issue.

Hi Kai-Heng,

Can you check with OEM for which SKU they are reporting the issue ?
Kai Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com> 於 2018年10月3日 週三 下午3:28寫道：
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-10-03 at 15:15 +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> >> To avoid the firmware loading race between Bluetooth and WiFi on Intel
> >> 8260, load firmware exclusively when BT_INTEL is enabled.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
> >> ---
> >
> > Where is this coming from? Can you explain what "the firmware loading
> > race" is?
>
> Looks like the patch is not correctly threaded. I’ll resend the series.
>
> >
> >
> >> .../net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c   | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c
> >> index cc8c53dc0ab6..c30d3989e2a8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/trans.c
> >> @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >> #include <linux/module.h>
> >> +#include <linux/intel-wifi-bt.h>
> >
> > I don't see this upstream.  Is it something that was recently added?
> > Looks odd...
> >
> > Regardless, this should also be protected on CONFIG_BT_INTEL.
>
> Thanks, I’ll update this one.
>
> >
> >
> >> #include "iwl-drv.h"
> >> #include "iwl-trans.h"
> >> @@ -1335,6 +1336,10 @@ static int iwl_trans_pcie_start_fw(struct iwl_trans *trans,
> >>      bool hw_rfkill;
> >>      int ret;
> >>
> >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BT_INTEL)
> >> +    void (*firmware_lock_func)(void);
> >> +    void (*firmware_unlock_func)(void);
> >> +#endif
> >>      /* This may fail if AMT took ownership of the device */
> >>      if (iwl_pcie_prepare_card_hw(trans)) {
> >>              IWL_WARN(trans, "Exit HW not ready\n");
> >> @@ -1394,6 +1399,7 @@ static int iwl_trans_pcie_start_fw(struct iwl_trans *trans,
> >>       * RF-Kill switch is toggled, we will find out after having loaded
> >>       * the firmware and return the proper value to the caller.
> >>       */
> >> +
> >
> > Stray empty line.
> >
> >>      iwl_enable_fw_load_int(trans);
> >>
> >>      /* really make sure rfkill handshake bits are cleared */
> >> @@ -1401,8 +1407,37 @@ static int iwl_trans_pcie_start_fw(struct iwl_trans *trans,
> >>      iwl_write32(trans, CSR_UCODE_DRV_GP1_CLR, CSR_UCODE_SW_BIT_RFKILL);
> >>
> >>      /* Load the given image to the HW */
> >> -    if (trans->cfg->device_family >= IWL_DEVICE_FAMILY_8000)
> >> +    if (trans->cfg->device_family >= IWL_DEVICE_FAMILY_8000) {
> >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BT_INTEL)
> >> +            firmware_lock_func = symbol_request(btintel_firmware_lock);
> >> +            firmware_unlock_func = symbol_request(btintel_firmware_unlock);
> >> +            if (!firmware_lock_func || !firmware_unlock_func) {
> >> +                    if (firmware_lock_func) {
> >> +                            symbol_put(btintel_firmware_lock);
> >> +                            firmware_lock_func = NULL;
> >> +                    }
> >> +
> >> +                    if (firmware_unlock_func) {
> >> +                            symbol_put(btintel_firmware_unlock);
> >> +                            firmware_unlock_func = NULL;
> >> +                    }
> >> +            }
> >> +
> >> +            if (firmware_lock_func)
> >> +                    firmware_lock_func();
> >> +#endif
> >>              ret = iwl_pcie_load_given_ucode_8000(trans, fw);
> >> +
> >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BT_INTEL)
> >> +            if (firmware_unlock_func) {
> >> +                    firmware_unlock_func();
> >> +                    symbol_put(btintel_firmware_lock);
> >> +                    firmware_lock_func = NULL;
> >> +                    symbol_put(btintel_firmware_unlock);
> >> +                    firmware_unlock_func = NULL;
> >> +            }
> >> +#endif
> >> +    }
> >>      else
> >>              ret = iwl_pcie_load_given_ucode(trans, fw);
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure I like adding this BT-specific stuff here, especially not
> > without a detailed explanation.
> >
> > Did you also send the other patches in this series to linux-wireless? I
> > can't see them…
>
> I’ll resend one soon.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kai-Heng
>
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Luca.
>