linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 09/23] iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s: Extend to support PA[33:32] for MediaTek

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:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:57:11 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>, youlin.pei@...iatek.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        cui.zhang@...iatek.com, srv_heupstream@...iatek.com,
        chao.hao@...iatek.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...gle.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        ming-fan.chen@...iatek.com, anan.sun@...iatek.com,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 09/23] iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s: Extend to support
 PA[33:32] for MediaTek

On 2019-08-22 11:17 am, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2019-08-22 9:56 am, Yong Wu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 16:24 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:53:12PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
>>>>> MediaTek extend the arm v7s descriptor to support up to 34 bits PA where
>>>>> the bit32 and bit33 are encoded in the bit9 and bit4 of the PTE
>>>>> respectively. Meanwhile the iova still is 32bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding whether the pagetable address could be over 4GB, the mt8183
>>>>> support it while the previous mt8173 don't, thus keep it as is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>    include/linux/io-pgtable.h         |  7 +++----
>>>>>    2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -731,7 +747,9 @@ static struct io_pgtable *arm_v7s_alloc_pgtable(struct io_pgtable_cfg *cfg,
>>>>>    {
>>>>>    	struct arm_v7s_io_pgtable *data;
>>>>> -	if (cfg->ias > ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS || cfg->oas > ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS)
>>>>> +	if (cfg->ias > ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS ||
>>>>> +	    (cfg->oas > ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS &&
>>>>> +	     !(cfg->quirks & IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_MTK_EXT)))
>>>>
>>>> Please can you instead change arm_v7s_alloc_pgtable() so that it allows an
>>>> ias of up to 34 when the IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_MTK_EXT is set?
>>>
>>> Here I only simply skip the oas checking for our case. then which way do
>>> your prefer?  something like you commented before:?
>>>
>>>
>>> 	if (cfg->ias > ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS)
>>> 		return NULL;
>>>
>>> 	if (cfg->quirks & IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_MTK_EXT) {
>>> 		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT))
>>> 			cfg->oas = min(cfg->oas, ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS);
>>> 		else if (cfg->oas > 34)
>>> 			return NULL;
>>> 	} else if (cfg->oas > ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS) {
>>> 		return NULL;
>>> 	}
>>
>> All it should take is something like:
>>
>> 	if (cfg->quirks & IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_MTK_EXT)
>> 		max_oas = 34;
>> 	else
>> 		max_oas = 32;
>> 	if (cfg->oas > max_oas)
>> 		return NULL;
>>
>> or even just:
>>
>> 	if (cfg->oas > 32 ||
>> 	    (cfg->quirks & IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_MTK_EXT && cfg->oas > 34))
>> 		return NULL;
>>
>> (and if we prefer the latter style, perhaps we could introduce some kind of
>> "is_mtk_4gb()" helper to save on verbosity)
> 
> I wondered the same thing, but another place we'd want the check is in
> iopte_to_paddr() which probably needs the PHYS_ADDR_T check to avoid GCC
> warnings, although I didn't try it.

I'm pretty sure I confirmed that "paddr |= BIT_ULL(32)" doesn't warn 
when phys_addt_t is 32-bit - it's well-defined unsigned integer 
truncation after all, and if GCC starts warning about all the valid 
no-op code it optimises away then it's going to run up against 
IS_ENABLED() first and foremost ;)

> So if we did:
> 
> static bool cfg_mtk_ext_enabled(struct io_pgtable_cfg *cfg)
> {
> 	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT) &&
> 	       cfg->quirks & IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_MTK_EXT;
> }
> 
> Then I suppose we could do this in _alloc():
> 
> 	if (cfg->oas > cfg_mtk_ext_enabled(cfg) ? 34 : ARM_V7S_ADDR_BITS)
> 		return NULL;
> 
> and then this in iopte_to_paddr():
> 
> 	[...]
> 
> 	paddr = pte & mask;
> 	if (!cfg_mtk_ext_enabled(cfg))
> 		return paddr;
> 
> 	if (pte & ARM_V7S_ATTR_MTK_PA_BIT32)
> 		paddr |= ...
> 
> 	[...]
> 
> What do you reckon?

Yeah, that's the general shape of things I was picturing - I'm not that 
fussed about the PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT thing, especially if it's wrapped up 
in just one place, so if you do want to keep it as belt-and-braces I'll 
just consider it a slight code size optimisation for 32-bit builds.

Robin.