linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] firmware: add offset to request_firmware_into

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: <c3bf2985-78d3-ae98-a19d-a596f42a22ce@broadcom.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:23:21 -0800
From:   Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] firmware: add offset to request_firmware_into_buf



On 2020-02-21 12:44 a.m., Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:11 AM Scott Branden
> <scott.branden@...adcom.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-10-11 6:31 a.m., Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:40:02PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:24:22 +0200,
>>>> Scott Branden wrote:
>>>>> I will admit I am not familiar with every subtlety of PCI
>>>>> accesses. Any comments to the Valkyrie driver in this patch series are
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>> But not all drivers need to work on all architectures. I can add a
>>>>> depends on x86 64bit architectures to the driver to limit it to such.
>>>> But it's an individual board on PCIe, and should work no matter which
>>>> architecture is?  Or is this really exclusive to x86?
>>> Poke Scott.
>> Yes, this is exclusive to x86.
>> In particular, 64-bit x86 server class machines with PCIe gen3 support.
>> There is no reason for these PCIe boards to run in other lower end
>> machines or architectures.
> It doesn't really matter that much what you expect your customers to
> do with your product, or what works a particular machine today, drivers
> should generally be written in a portable manner anyway and use
> the documented APIs. memcpy() into an __iomem pointer is not
> portable and while it probably works on any x86 machine today, please
> just don't do it. If you use 'sparse' to check your code, that would normally
> result in an address space warning, unless you add __force and a
> long comment explaining why you cannot just use memcpy_to_io()
> instead. At that point, you are already better off usingn memcpy_to_io() ;-)
We don't want to allocate to intermediate memory and do another memcpy 
just to write to pcie.
I will have to look into the linux request_firmware_info_buf code and 
detect whether the buf being request to is
in kernel or io memory and perform the operation there.  Hopefully such 
is possible.
>
>          Arnd