linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:33:14 -0800
From:   Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@...ry-design.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        daniel.lll@...baba-inc.com,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@...ron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

On 21-02-01 14:28:59, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On 21-02-01 14:23:47, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2021, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > > +static int cxl_mem_setup_mailbox(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	const int cap = cxl_read_mbox_reg32(cxlm, CXLDEV_MB_CAPS_OFFSET);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	cxlm->mbox.payload_size =
> > > > > > > +		1 << CXL_GET_FIELD(cap, CXLDEV_MB_CAP_PAYLOAD_SIZE);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	/* 8.2.8.4.3 */
> > > > > > > +	if (cxlm->mbox.payload_size < 256) {
> > > > > > > +		dev_err(&cxlm->pdev->dev, "Mailbox is too small (%zub)",
> > > > > > > +			cxlm->mbox.payload_size);
> > > > > > > +		return -ENXIO;
> > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Any reason not to check cxlm->mbox.payload_size > (1 << 20) as well and 
> > > > > > return ENXIO if true?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If some crazy vendor wanted to ship a mailbox larger than 1M, why should the
> > > > > driver not allow it?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Because the spec disallows it :)
> > > 
> > > I don't see it being the driver's responsibility to enforce spec correctness
> > > though. In certain cases, I need to use the spec, like I have to pick /some/
> > > mailbox timeout. For other cases... 
> > > 
> > > I'm not too familiar with what other similar drivers may or may not do in
> > > situations like this. The current 256 limit is mostly a reflection of that being
> > > too small to even support advertised mandatory commands. So things can't work in
> > > that scenario, but things can work if they have a larger register size (so long
> > > as the BAR advertises enough space).
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think things can work above 1MB, either, though.  Section 
> > 8.2.8.4.5 specifies 20 bits to define the payload length, if this is 
> > larger than cxlm->mbox.payload_size it would venture into the reserved 
> > bits of the command register.
> > 
> > So is the idea to allow cxl_mem_setup_mailbox() to succeed with a payload 
> > size > 1MB and then only check 20 bits for the command register?
> 
> So it's probably a spec bug, but actually the payload size is 21 bits... I'll
> check if that was a mistake.

Well I guess they wanted to be able to specify 1M exactly... Spec should
probably say you can't go over 1M