linux-kernel - [PATCH v5 09/20] iommu/mediatek: Refine protect memory definition

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]

Message-ID: <1546314952-15990-10-git-send-email-yong.wu@mediatek.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jan 2019 11:55:41 +0800
From:   Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>, <yong.wu@...iatek.com>,
        <youlin.pei@...iatek.com>, Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Subject: [PATCH v5 09/20] iommu/mediatek: Refine protect memory definition

The protect memory setting is a little different in the different SoCs.
In the register REG_MMU_CTRL_REG(0x110), the TF_PROT(translation fault
protect) shift bit is normally 4 while it shift 5 bits only in the
mt8173. This patch delete the complex MACRO and use a common if-else
instead.

Also, use "F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR" instead of the hard code(2)
which means the M4U will output the dirty data to the programmed
address that we allocated dynamically when translation fault occurs.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
---
@Nicalos, I don't put it in the plat_data since only the previous mt8173
shift 5. As I know, the latest SoC always use the new setting like mt2712
and mt8183. Thus, I think it is unnecessary to put it in plat_data and
let all the latest SoC set it. Hence, I still keep "== mt8173" for this
like the reg REG_MMU_CTRL_REG.
---
 drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 12 +++++-------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
index eca1536..35a1263 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
@@ -53,11 +53,7 @@
 
 #define REG_MMU_CTRL_REG			0x110
 #define F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD		BIT(4)
-#define F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL_SHIFT(data) \
-	((data)->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT2712 ? 4 : 5)
-/* It's named by F_MMU_TF_PROT_SEL in mt2712. */
-#define F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL(prot, data) \
-	(((prot) & 0x3) << F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL_SHIFT(data))
+#define F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR		2
 
 #define REG_MMU_IVRP_PADDR			0x114
 
@@ -521,9 +517,11 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct mtk_iommu_data *data)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	regval = F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL(2, data);
 	if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
-		regval |= F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD;
+		regval = F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD |
+			  (F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR << 5);
+	else
+		regval = F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR << 4;
 	writel_relaxed(regval, data->base + REG_MMU_CTRL_REG);
 
 	regval = F_L2_MULIT_HIT_EN |
-- 
1.9.1