| 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: <bdd563a9-c8d4-307b-617c-139dda3e4984@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:23:57 -0600
From: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: PCI: Enable SMC conduit
Hi,
On 1/7/21 9:28 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:57 PM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Given that most arm64 platform's PCI implementations needs quirks
>> to deal with problematic config accesses, this is a good place to
>> apply a firmware abstraction. The ARM PCI SMMCCC spec details a
>> standard SMC conduit designed to provide a simple PCI config
>> accessor. This specification enhances the existing ACPI/PCI
>> abstraction and expects power, config, etc functionality is handled
>> by the platform. It also is very explicit that the resulting config
>> space registers must behave as is specified by the pci specification.
>
> If we put it in a document, they must behave.
>
>> Lets hook the normal ACPI/PCI config path, and when we detect
>> missing MADT data, attempt to probe the SMC conduit. If the conduit
>> exists and responds for the requested segment number (provided by the
>> ACPI namespace) attach a custom pci_ecam_ops which redirects
>> all config read/write requests to the firmware.
>>
>> This patch is based on the Arm PCI Config space access document @
>> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0115/latest
>
> From the spec:
> "On some platforms, the SoC may only support 32-bit PCI configuration
> space writes. On such platforms, calls to this function with access
> size of 1 or 2 bytes may require the implementation of this function
> to perform a PCI configuration read, following by the write. This
> could result in inadvertently corrupting adjacent RW1C fields. It is
> the implementation responsibility to be aware of these situations and
> guard against them if possible."
>
> First, this contradicts the above statement about being compliant with
> the PCI spec. Second, Linux is left to just guess whether this is the
> case or not? I guess it would be pointless for firmware to advertise
> this because it could just lie.
Thanks for taking a look at this.
Right, to clarify. The result of the SMC calls must appear to be
compliant, but the underlying hardware of course may not be.
The RW1C discussion during the spec reviews was extensive, but as you
can see from the language the intention is that the results appear
compliant. But IMHO, considering that ECAM is a configuration mechanism
not an operational one, if one looks at the results of the existing
alignment quirks in the kernel & the DT host bridge drivers, its not
particularly problematic. In the case that there is a problem with a
particular adapter, its the firmware's responsibility to deal with it.
If that isn't possible then of course the machine is neither ECAM or
compatible with this specification, same as what happens if there is a
fundamental issue with the MMIO mapping. Its also not unheard of for
cards to simply be incompatible with machines due to lack of optional
features like PIO.
>
> I would like to know how to 'guard against them' so I can implement
> that in the kernel accessors. >
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/arm-smccc.h | 26 ++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 113 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
>> index 1006ed2d7c60..56d3773aaa25 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <linux/acpi.h>
>> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
>> #include <linux/init.h>
>> #include <linux/io.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> @@ -107,6 +108,90 @@ static int pci_acpi_root_prepare_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *ci)
>> return status;
>> }
>>
>> +static int smccc_pcie_check_conduit(u16 seg)
>
> check what? Based on how you use this, perhaps _has_conduit() instead.
Sure.
>
>> +{
>> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
>> +
>> + if (arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit() == SMCCC_CONDUIT_NONE)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + arm_smccc_smc(SMCCC_PCI_VERSION, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
>> + if ((int)res.a0 < 0)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + arm_smccc_smc(SMCCC_PCI_SEG_INFO, seg, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
>> + if ((int)res.a0 < 0)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Don't you need to check that read and write functions are supported?
In theory no, the first version of the specification makes them
mandatory for all implementations. There isn't a partial access method,
so nothing works if only read or write were implemented.
>
>> +
>> + pr_info("PCI: SMC conduit attached to segment %d\n", seg);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int smccc_pcie_config_read(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
>> + int where, int size, u32 *val)
>> +{
>> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
>> +
>> + devfn |= bus->number << 8;
>> + devfn |= bus->domain_nr << 16;
>> +
>> + arm_smccc_smc(SMCCC_PCI_READ, devfn, where, size, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
>> + if (res.a0) {
>> + *val = ~0;
>> + return -PCIBIOS_BAD_REGISTER_NUMBER;
>> + }
>> +
>> + *val = res.a1;
>> + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int smccc_pcie_config_write(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
>> + int where, int size, u32 val)
>> +{
>> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
>> +
>> + devfn |= bus->number << 8;
>> + devfn |= bus->domain_nr << 16;
>> +
>> + arm_smccc_smc(SMCCC_PCI_WRITE, devfn, where, size, val, 0, 0, 0, &res);
>> + if (res.a0)
>> + return -PCIBIOS_BAD_REGISTER_NUMBER;
>> +
>> + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct pci_ecam_ops smccc_pcie_ecam_ops = {
>> + .bus_shift = 8,
>
> Drop. You don't use this and it's not ECAM. Though I'm wondering why
> the smc interface is not just ECAM shifts instead of making up our
> own. I would have made segment its own register rather than reg
> offset.
Sure.
Thanks again.
>
>> + .pci_ops = {
>> + .read = smccc_pcie_config_read,
>> + .write = smccc_pcie_config_write,
>> + }
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct pci_config_window *
>> +pci_acpi_setup_smccc_mapping(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = &root->device->dev;
>> + struct resource *bus_res = &root->secondary;
>> + struct pci_config_window *cfg;
>> +
>> + cfg = kzalloc(sizeof(*cfg), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!cfg)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> + cfg->parent = dev;
>> + cfg->ops = &smccc_pcie_ecam_ops;
>> + cfg->busr.start = bus_res->start;
>> + cfg->busr.end = bus_res->end;
>> + cfg->busr.flags = IORESOURCE_BUS;
>> +
>> + cfg->res.name = "PCI SMCCC";
>> + if (cfg->ops->init)
>> + cfg->ops->init(cfg);
>> + return cfg;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Lookup the bus range for the domain in MCFG, and set up config space
>> * mapping.
>> @@ -125,6 +210,8 @@ pci_acpi_setup_ecam_mapping(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>>
>> ret = pci_mcfg_lookup(root, &cfgres, &ecam_ops);
>> if (ret) {
>> + if (!smccc_pcie_check_conduit(seg))
>> + return pci_acpi_setup_smccc_mapping(root);
>> dev_err(dev, "%04x:%pR ECAM region not found\n", seg, bus_res);
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>> index f860645f6512..327f52533c71 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>> @@ -89,6 +89,32 @@
>>
>> #define SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_RET_UNAFFECTED 1
>>
>> +/* PCI ECAM conduit */
>> +#define SMCCC_PCI_VERSION \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD, 0x0130)
>> +
>> +#define SMCCC_PCI_FEATURES \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD, 0x0131)
>> +
>> +#define SMCCC_PCI_READ \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD, 0x0132)
>> +
>> +#define SMCCC_PCI_WRITE \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD, 0x0133)
>> +
>> +#define SMCCC_PCI_SEG_INFO \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32, \
>> + ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD, 0x0134)
>> +
>> /* Paravirtualised time calls (defined by ARM DEN0057A) */
>> #define ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES \
>> ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL, \
>> --
>> 2.26.2
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists