linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ata: ahci_platform: add 32-bit quirk for dwc-ahci

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 12:09:49 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     "vigneshr@...com" <vigneshr@...com>,
        "nsekhar@...com" <nsekhar@...com>,
        "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: ahci_platform: add 32-bit quirk for dwc-ahci

On 2020-02-12 11:56 am, David Laight wrote:
> From: Robin Murphy
>> Sent: 12 February 2020 11:43
> ...
>> If the device *is* inherently 64-bit capable, then setting 64-bit masks
>> in the driver is correct - if a 64-bit IP block happens to have been
>> integrated with only 32 address bits wired up, but the system has memory
>> above the 32-bit boundary, then that should be described via
>> "dma-ranges", which should then end up being used to further constrain
>> the device masks internally to the DMA API.
> 
> Given how often this happens (please can I shoot some more
> hardware engineers - he says while compiling some VHDL)
> is it possible to allocate some memory pages that are
> aliases if the address bits over 31 are ignored?
> 
> Then (at least some) drivers could to a run-time probe
> reading to the high address and checking the data didn't
> appear in the low address.
> 
> Only one such set of pages is needed - access can be locked.
> But they'd need to be reserved early on.

(Oh, for that much control over page allocation!)

It's a fun idea, but there's no guarantee that the platform memory map 
is actually suitable (AMD Seattle is the go-to counterexample), and 
having an opt-in test that every driver has to implement individually 
sounds like a maintenance nightmare. I think it's far better all round 
to just expect the firmware-provided machine description - be it 
devicetree, ACPI, or whatever - to correctly describe the integration.

Robin.