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  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:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 11:41:12 +0800
From:   Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>
To:     Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@...nel.org>
CC:     Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] soc: mediatek: add mtk-devapc driver

Hi Chun-Kuang,

On Fri, 2020-07-31 at 23:55 +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> Hi, Neal:
> 
> Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com> 於 2020年7月31日 週五 上午10:52寫道:
> >
> > Hi Chun-Kuang,
> >
> > On Fri, 2020-07-31 at 00:14 +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > > Hi, Neal:
> > >
> > > Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com> 於 2020年7月29日 週三 下午4:29寫道:
> > > >
> > > > MediaTek bus fabric provides TrustZone security support and data
> > > > protection to prevent slaves from being accessed by unexpected
> > > > masters.
> > > > The security violation is logged and sent to the processor for
> > > > further analysis or countermeasures.
> > > >
> > > > Any occurrence of security violation would raise an interrupt, and
> > > > it will be handled by mtk-devapc driver. The violation
> > > > information is printed in order to find the murderer.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * devapc_extract_vio_dbg - extract full violation information after doing
> > > > + *                          shift mechanism.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static void devapc_extract_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       const struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs *vio_dbgs;
> > > > +       struct mtk_devapc_vio_info *vio_info;
> > > > +       void __iomem *vio_dbg0_reg;
> > > > +       void __iomem *vio_dbg1_reg;
> > > > +       u32 dbg0;
> > > > +
> > > > +       vio_dbg0_reg = ctx->devapc_pd_base + ctx->offset->vio_dbg0;
> > > > +       vio_dbg1_reg = ctx->devapc_pd_base + ctx->offset->vio_dbg1;
> > > > +
> > > > +       vio_dbgs = ctx->vio_dbgs;
> > > > +       vio_info = ctx->vio_info;
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* Starts to extract violation information */
> > > > +       dbg0 = readl(vio_dbg0_reg);
> > > > +       vio_info->vio_addr = readl(vio_dbg1_reg);
> > > > +
> > > > +       vio_info->master_id = (dbg0 & vio_dbgs->mstid.mask) >>
> > > > +                             vio_dbgs->mstid.start;
> > > > +       vio_info->domain_id = (dbg0 & vio_dbgs->dmnid.mask) >>
> > > > +                             vio_dbgs->dmnid.start;
> > > > +       vio_info->write = ((dbg0 & vio_dbgs->vio_w.mask) >>
> > > > +                           vio_dbgs->vio_w.start) == 1;
> > > > +       vio_info->read = ((dbg0 & vio_dbgs->vio_r.mask) >>
> > > > +                         vio_dbgs->vio_r.start) == 1;
> > > > +       vio_info->vio_addr_high = (dbg0 & vio_dbgs->addr_h.mask) >>
> > > > +                                 vio_dbgs->addr_h.start;
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to define the type of ctx->vio_info to be
> > >
> > > struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs {
> > >     u32 mstid:16;
> > >     u32 dmnid:6;
> > >     u32 vio_w:1;
> > >     u32 vio_r:1;
> > >     u32 addr_h:4;
> > >     u32 resv:4;
> > > };
> > >
> > > so the code would like the simple way
> > >
> > > ctx->vio_info = (struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs)readl(vio_dbg1_reg);
> > >
> >
> > This idea looks great! Is there any possible to pass the bit layout by
> > DT data, and still make this operation simple?
> > Why am I asking this question is because this bit layout is platform
> > dependent.
> 
> I doubt these info would be in a single 32-bits register for all
> future SoC. If they are not in single 32-bits register, you may create
> a vio_dbgs_type in DT data, and the code may be
> 
> if (ctx->vio_dbgs_type == VIO_DBGS_TYPE_MTxxxx) {
>     ctx->vio_info = (struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs)readl(vio_dbg1_reg);
> } else if (ctx->vio_dbgs_type == VIO_DBGS_TYPE_MTyyyy) {
>     ctx->vio_info->mstid = readl(vio_mstid_reg);
>     ctx->vio_info->dmnid = readl(vio_dmnid_reg);
>     ctx->vio_info->vio_w = readl(vio_vio_w_reg);
>     ctx->vio_info->vio_r = readl(vio_vio_r_reg);
> }
> 
> I think we need not to consider how the future would be. Once the
> second SoC driver is upstreaming, we could find out the best solution
> for it.
> 

Okay, I'll apply this on next patch.
Thanks !

> Regards,
> Chun-Kuang.
> 
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Chun-Kuang.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +       devapc_vio_info_print(ctx);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists