| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:21:21 +0100
From: Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Carlo Caione <ccaione@...libre.com>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Add workaround for core wake-up on IPI for i.MX8MQ
On 06.11.19 23:36, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On 06.11.2019 13:59, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>> On 04.11.19 11:35, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>> On 19-11-04 09:49:18, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>>> On 30.10.19 09:08, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>>>> On 19-10-30 07:11:37, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>>>>> On 23.06.19 13:47, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10.06.19 14:13, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is another alternative for the RFC:
>>>>>>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flkml.org%2Flkml%2F2019%2F3%2F27%2F545&data=02%7C01%7Cleonard.crestez%40nxp.com%7C6ca438b3b9e44d70ac7608d762b0c030%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637086383589318475&sdata=NyFLkQ8PUfC7PGejDK7NBJoQu36ZfaYvg9yuJvHedzo%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This new workaround proposal is a little bit more hacky but more contained
>>>>>>>> since everything is done within the irq-imx-gpcv2 driver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basically, it 'hijacks' the registered gic_raise_softirq __smp_cross_call
>>>>>>>> handler and registers instead a wrapper which calls in the 'hijacked'
>>>>>>>> handler, after that calling into EL3 which will take care of the actual
>>>>>>>> wake up. This time, instead of expanding the PSCI ABI, we use a new vendor SIP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also have the patches ready for TF-A but I'll hold on to them until I see if
>>>>>>>> this has a chance of getting in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Abel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Running this workaround doesn't seem to work anymore on 5.4-rcX. Linux
>>>>>> doesn't boot, with ATF unchanged (includes your workaround changes). I
>>>>>> can try to add more details to this...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is happening because the system counter is now enabled on 8mq.
>>>>> And since the irq-imx-gpcv2 is using as irq_set_affinity the
>>>>> irq_chip_set_affinity_parent. This is because the actual implementation
>>>>> of the driver relies on GIC to set the right affinity. On a SoC
>>>>> that has the wake_request signales linked to the power controller this
>>>>> works fine. Since the system counter is actually the tick broadcast
>>>>> device and the set affinity relies only on GIC, the cores can't be
>>>>> woken up by the broadcast interrupt.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you tested this for 5.4? Could you update this workaround? Please
>>>>>> let me know if I missed any earlier update on this (having a cpu-sleep
>>>>>> idle state).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution is to implement the set affinity in the irq-imx-gpcv2 driver
>>>>> which would allow the gpc to wake up the target core when the broadcast
>>>>> irq arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a patch for this. I just need to clean it up a little bit.
>>>>> Unfortunately, it won't go upstream since everuone thinks the gic
>>>>> should be the one to control the affinity. This obviously doesn't work
>>>>> on 8mq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, I'm at ELCE in Lyon. Will get back at the office tomorrow
>>>>> and sned you what I have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Abel,
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any news on said patch for testing? That'd be great for my
>>>> plannings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late answer.
>>>
>>> I'm dropping here the diff.
>>>
>>> Please keep in mind that this is _not_ an official solution.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c
>>> index 01ce6f4..3150588 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c
>>> @@ -41,6 +41,24 @@ static void __iomem *gpcv2_idx_to_reg(struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd, int i)
>>> return cd->gpc_base + cd->cpu2wakeup + i * 4;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void __iomem *gpcv2_idx_to_reg_cpu(struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd,
>>> + int i, int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + u32 offset = GPC_IMR1_CORE0;
>>> + switch(cpu) {
>>> + case 1:
>>> + offset = GPC_IMR1_CORE1;
>>> + break;
>>> + case 2:
>>> + offset = GPC_IMR1_CORE2;
>>> + break;
>>> + case 3:
>>> + offset = GPC_IMR1_CORE3;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + return cd->gpc_base + offset + i * 4;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int gpcv2_wakeup_source_save(void)
>>> {
>>> struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd;
>>> @@ -163,6 +181,28 @@ static void imx_gpcv2_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
>>> irq_chip_mask_parent(d);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int imx_gpcv2_irq_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
>>> + const struct cpumask *dest, bool force)
>>> +{
>>> + struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd = d->chip_data;
>>> + void __iomem *reg;
>>> + u32 val;
>>> + int cpu;
>>> +
>>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>> + raw_spin_lock(&cd->rlock);
>>> + reg = gpcv2_idx_to_reg_cpu(cd, d->hwirq / 32, cpu);
>>> + val = readl_relaxed(reg);
>>> + val |= BIT(d->hwirq % 32);
>>> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, dest))
>>> + val &= ~BIT(d->hwirq % 32);
>>> + writel_relaxed(val, reg);
>>> + raw_spin_unlock(&cd->rlock);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return irq_chip_set_affinity_parent(d, dest, force);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static struct irq_chip gpcv2_irqchip_data_chip = {
>>> .name = "GPCv2",
>>> .irq_eoi = irq_chip_eoi_parent,
>>> @@ -172,7 +212,7 @@ static struct irq_chip gpcv2_irqchip_data_chip = {
>>> .irq_retrigger = irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy,
>>> .irq_set_type = irq_chip_set_type_parent,
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>> - .irq_set_affinity = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent,
>>> + .irq_set_affinity = imx_gpcv2_irq_set_affinity,
>>> #endif
>>> };
>
> This is prone to race conditions.
>
> In NXP tree there is different gpcv2 irqchip driver which does all GPC
> IMR register manipulation in TF-A through SMC calls. The cpuidle
> workaround also manipulates the same registers and does so safely under
> a lock.>
> If OS also writes to same IMR register then set_affinity for SPIs 1-31
> can potentially race with one those cores being woken up. This is very
> unlikely (set_affinity calls are rare) but in the worst case the system
> could still hang on lost IPI.
>
>> I guess this diff does not apply when using this reworked change:
>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsource.puri.sm%2FLibrem5%2Flinux-next%2Fcommit%2Fe59807ae0e236512761b751abc84a9b129d7fcda&data=02%7C01%7Cleonard.crestez%40nxp.com%7C6ca438b3b9e44d70ac7608d762b0c030%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637086383589318475&sdata=Mf%2BFtqFSG4xHL3IGPrD%2FOweR8qoJHV0IKuziPIUK%2Bsw%3D&reserved=0
>> which has worked for me when running 5.3.
>>
>> At least on 5.4-rc5, using your change, I still get
>>
>> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuidle/current_driver
>> none
>
> This reads "psci_idle" for me in linux-next on imx8mm. Your problem
> seems to be related to probing the cpuidle driver, not related to any
> hardware workarounds.
>
>> But also when trying to rewrite your patch against irq-gic-v3.c at least
>> nothing changes for me (I might have done that wrong as well though).
>>
>> What needs to change (in order to have the cpu-sleep state / idle
>> driver) based on the above "reworked" workaround?
>>
>> Could the config have changed? CONFIG_ARM_CPUIDLE should be the only
>> needed path, or did things change there in 5.4?
>
> It seems there were some recent cleanups in the cpuidle psci core code,
> maybe you need config updates?
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11052723/
>
>> I know all this is no real solution, but currently the only way to have
>> said sleep state on top of mainline. so be it for now.
> Can you use the gpcv2 driver from NXP tree?
hm. what driver do you mean? at least
https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/linux-imx/tree/drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c?h=imx_4.19.35_1.0.0
seems not support imx8mq yet.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Leonard
>
Hi Leonard, hi Abel,
Thanks for having a look! To sum up this problem and not to get confused:
We have the workaround that changes irq-imx-gpcv2 from this very email
thread, to be used with mainline ATF. when applying Abel's recent diff,
Linux 5.4 boots but I still don't have a cpuidle driver.
When I enable CONFIG_ARM_PSCI_CPUIDLE, the kernel hangs during boot
(after probing mmc, but that doesn't tell much)
What do I miss?
Then (in parallel) we have NXP's ATF:
https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/imx-atf/log/?h=imx_4.19.35_1.0.0
that I test in parallel (and will actually want to have cpuidle right
now too). The workaround in Linux in that case looks like so:
https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/linux-imx/commit/?h=imx_4.19.35_1.0.0&id=26a59057f88997dfe48ab7f81898ddd6b6d3903e
which changes irq-gic-v3 only.
Since 5.4, also no cpu-sleep state anymore. What would need to change in
that "NXP" case, for 5.4 to have cpuidle again?
When I enable ARM_PSCI_CPUIDLE here, right now Linux hangs during boot
(during probing sdhci but again that seems random).
I'm still happy for hints :)
Thanks,
martin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists