| 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: <CA+V-a8saLrvuTiQWaSGK9j6BA=waOSAwNdm_2Ae-EpMKOq-73A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:21:31 +0000
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Tom Joseph <tjoseph@...ence.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
"Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 2/6] pci: endpoint: add support to handle features of
outbound memory
Hi Bjorn,
thank you for the review.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:06 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:47:44AM +0000, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> >
> > rcar pcie controller has support to map multiple memory regions
> > for mapping the outbound memory in local system, this feature
> > inspires to add support for handling such features in endpoint
> > framework. similar features exists on other controllers where
> > outbound regions can be specifically used for low/high priority
> > transactions, and regions can be flagged and used for allocation
> > of large/small memory allocations.
> > This patch adds support to handle such features, where the
> > properties described for outbound regions are used whenever a
> > request to memory is made.
>
> For this and the other patches, please:
>
> - start sentences with a capital letter
> - leave a blank line between paragraphs
> - wrap commit log text to use the whole 80 character line (I wrap to
> 75 characters to account for "git log" indenting by 4 spaces)
> - check your signed-off-by: it shows your name as "Lad, Prabhakar",
> while your email From: line shows "Lad Prabhakar". Choose one :)
>
sure will fix it next version.
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-mem.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-mem.c
> > index 2bf8bd1..4b610cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-mem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-mem.c
>
> > -int __pci_epc_mem_init(struct pci_epc *epc, phys_addr_t phys_base, size_t size,
> > - size_t page_size)
> > +int __pci_epc_mem_init(struct pci_epc *epc, struct pci_epc_mem_window *windows,
> > + int num_windows, size_t page_size)
> > {
> > - int ret;
> > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > - unsigned long *bitmap;
> > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem = NULL;
> > + unsigned long *bitmap = NULL;
> > unsigned int page_shift;
> > - int pages;
> > int bitmap_size;
> > + int pages;
> > + int ret;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + epc->mem_windows = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!windows)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (num_windows <= 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Why is num_windows signed?
>
> > void pci_epc_mem_exit(struct pci_epc *epc)
> > {
> > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem = epc->mem;
> > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + if (!epc->mem_windows)
> > + return;
>
> If you fix the loop below, why do you even need to test this?
>
yes makes sense will drop this check.
> > + for (i = 0; i <= epc->mem_windows; i--) {
>
> Huh? "<="? "i--"? Surely you mean
>
> for (i = 0; i < epc->mem_windows; i++) {
>
oops my bad, will fix it.
> > + mem = epc->mem[i];
> > + kfree(mem->bitmap);
> > + kfree(epc->mem[i]);
> > + }
> > + kfree(epc->mem);
> >
> > epc->mem = NULL;
> > - kfree(mem->bitmap);
> > - kfree(mem);
> > + epc->mem_windows = 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_exit);
> >
> > +static int pci_epc_find_best_fit_window(struct pci_epc *epc, size_t size,
> > + u32 flags)
>
> Can this just return a struct pci_epc_mem *, so the caller doesn't
> have to lookup epc->mem[i] again?
>
yes makes sense will change it to return struct pci_epc_mem *
> > +{
> > + size_t window_least_size = 0;
> > + int best_fit_window = -1;
> > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > + size_t actual_size;
> > + size_t avail_size;
> > + u32 win_flags;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < epc->mem_windows; i++) {
> > + mem = epc->mem[i];
> > + win_flags = mem->window.flags;
> > +
> > + actual_size = ALIGN(size, mem->page_size);
> > + avail_size = mem->window.size - mem->window.map_size;
> > +
> > + if (win_flags == 0x0) {
> > + if (best_fit_window == -1) {
> > + if (actual_size <= avail_size) {
> > + best_fit_window = i;
> > + window_least_size = mem->window.size;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + if (actual_size <= avail_size &&
> > + mem->window.size < window_least_size) {
> > + best_fit_window = i;
> > + window_least_size = mem->window.size;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + if (mem->window.map_size &&
> > + (win_flags | PCI_EPC_WINDOW_FLAG_NON_MULTI_ALLOC))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (!(win_flags | flags))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (best_fit_window == -1) {
> > + if (actual_size <= avail_size) {
> > + best_fit_window = i;
> > + window_least_size = mem->window.size;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + if (actual_size <= avail_size &&
> > + mem->window.size < window_least_size) {
> > + best_fit_window = i;
> > + window_least_size = mem->window.size;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return best_fit_window;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr() - allocate memory address from EPC addr space
> > * @epc: the EPC device on which memory has to be allocated
> > * @phys_addr: populate the allocated physical address here
> > + * @window: populate the window here which will be used to map PCI address
> > * @size: the size of the address space that has to be allocated
> > + * @flags: look for window as requested in flags
> > *
> > * Invoke to allocate memory address from the EPC address space. This
> > * is usually done to map the remote RC address into the local system.
> > */
> > void __iomem *pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr(struct pci_epc *epc,
> > - phys_addr_t *phys_addr, size_t size)
> > + phys_addr_t *phys_addr,
> > + int *window, size_t size, uint32_t flags)
> > {
> > + int best_fit = PCI_EPC_DEFAULT_WINDOW;
> > + void __iomem *virt_addr = NULL;
> > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > + unsigned int page_shift;
> > int pageno;
> > - void __iomem *virt_addr;
> > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem = epc->mem;
> > - unsigned int page_shift = ilog2(mem->page_size);
> > int order;
> >
> > + if (epc->mem_windows <= 0)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + if (epc->mem_windows > 1) {
>
> Why bother testing epc->mem_windows here? Just make sure
> pci_epc_find_best_fit_window() returns the correct thing for
> "mem_windows == 0" and "mem_windows == 1", and remove both the tests
> above.
>
will fix that.
> > + best_fit = pci_epc_find_best_fit_window(epc, size, flags);
> > + if (best_fit < 0)
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mem = epc->mem[best_fit];
> > size = ALIGN(size, mem->page_size);
> > + if (size > (mem->window.size - mem->window.map_size))
> > + return NULL;
> > + page_shift = ilog2(mem->page_size);
> > order = pci_epc_mem_get_order(mem, size);
> >
> > pageno = bitmap_find_free_region(mem->bitmap, mem->pages, order);
> > if (pageno < 0)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > - *phys_addr = mem->phys_base + (pageno << page_shift);
> > + *phys_addr = mem->window.phys_base + (pageno << page_shift);
> > virt_addr = ioremap(*phys_addr, size);
> > - if (!virt_addr)
> > + if (!virt_addr) {
> > bitmap_release_region(mem->bitmap, pageno, order);
> > + } else {
> > + mem->window.map_size += size;
> > + *window = best_fit;
> > + }
> >
> > return virt_addr;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr);
> >
> > +static int pci_epc_get_matching_window(struct pci_epc *epc,
> > + phys_addr_t phys_addr)
>
> Return struct pci_epc_mem * again?
>
yes makes sense.
> > +{
> > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < epc->mem_windows; i++) {
> > + mem = epc->mem[i];
> > +
> > + if (mem->window.phys_base == phys_addr)
> > + return i;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * pci_epc_mem_free_addr() - free the allocated memory address
> > * @epc: the EPC device on which memory was allocated
> > @@ -155,16 +281,26 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr);
> > void pci_epc_mem_free_addr(struct pci_epc *epc, phys_addr_t phys_addr,
> > void __iomem *virt_addr, size_t size)
> > {
> > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > + unsigned int page_shift;
> > + int window = 0;
> > int pageno;
> > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem = epc->mem;
> > - unsigned int page_shift = ilog2(mem->page_size);
> > int order;
> >
> > + if (epc->mem_windows > 1) {
>
> Same here (unnecessary test).
>
will drop it.
> > + window = pci_epc_get_matching_window(epc, phys_addr);
> > + if (window < 0)
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mem = epc->mem[window];
> > + page_shift = ilog2(mem->page_size);
> > iounmap(virt_addr);
> > - pageno = (phys_addr - mem->phys_base) >> page_shift;
> > + pageno = (phys_addr - mem->window.phys_base) >> page_shift;
> > size = ALIGN(size, mem->page_size);
> > order = pci_epc_mem_get_order(mem, size);
> > bitmap_release_region(mem->bitmap, pageno, order);
> > + mem->window.map_size -= size;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_free_addr);
>
> > @@ -85,7 +126,8 @@ struct pci_epc_mem {
> > * @dev: PCI EPC device
> > * @pci_epf: list of endpoint functions present in this EPC device
> > * @ops: function pointers for performing endpoint operations
> > - * @mem: address space of the endpoint controller
> > + * @mem: array of address space of the endpoint controller
> > + * @mem_windows: number of windows supported by device
> > * @max_functions: max number of functions that can be configured in this EPC
> > * @group: configfs group representing the PCI EPC device
> > * @lock: spinlock to protect pci_epc ops
> > @@ -94,7 +136,8 @@ struct pci_epc {
> > struct device dev;
> > struct list_head pci_epf;
> > const struct pci_epc_ops *ops;
> > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > + struct pci_epc_mem **mem;
> > + int mem_windows;
>
> Can't this be unsigned int and then there's no need to check
> "mem_windows < 0"?
>
yes will change it unsigned int.
Cheers,
--Prabhakar
> > u8 max_functions;
> > struct config_group *group;
> > /* spinlock to protect against concurrent access of EP controller */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists