linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 3/6] platform/x86/intel: Move intel

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: <9777e4a972f7ff9c0a5c3acff89e21a0579173e5.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:18:19 -0800
From:   "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     lee.jones@...aro.org, hdegoede@...hat.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com,
        mgross@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/6] platform/x86/intel: Move intel_pmt from MFD to
 Auxiliary Bus

On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 20:27 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:59:18AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > Intel Platform Monitoring Technology (PMT) support is indicated by presence
> > of an Intel defined PCIe Designated Vendor Specific Extended Capabilities
> > (DVSEC) structure with a PMT specific ID. The current MFD implementation
> > creates child devices for each PMT feature, currently telemetry, watcher,
> > and crashlog. However DVSEC structures may also be used by Intel to
> > indicate support for other features. The Out Of Band Management Services
> > Module (OOBMSM) uses DVSEC to enumerate several features, including PMT.
> > In order to support them it is necessary to modify the intel_pmt driver to
> > handle the creation of the child devices more generically. To that end,
> > modify the driver to create child devices for any VSEC/DVSEC features on
> > supported devices (indicated by PCI ID).  Additionally, move the
> > implementation from MFD to the Auxiliary bus.  VSEC/DVSEC features are
> > really multifunctional PCI devices, not platform devices as MFD was
> > designed for. Auxiliary bus gives more flexibility by allowing the
> > definition of custom structures that can be shared between associated
> > auxiliary devices and the parent device. Also, rename the driver from
> > intel_pmt to intel_vsec to better reflect the purpose.
> > 
> > This series also removes the current runtime pm support which was not
> > complete to begin with. None of the current devices require runtime pm.
> > However the support will be replaced when a device is added that requires
> > it.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static bool intel_vsec_walk_dvsec(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned long
> > quirks)
> > +{
> > +	bool have_devices = false;
> > +	int pos = 0;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		struct intel_vsec_header header;
> > +		u32 table, hdr;
> > +		u16 vid;
> > +		int ret;
> > +
> > +		pos = pci_find_next_ext_capability(pdev, pos,
> > PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DVSEC);
> > +		if (!pos)
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1, &hdr);
> > +		vid = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_VID(hdr);
> > +		if (vid != PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		/* Support only revision 1 */
> > +		header.rev = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_REV(hdr);
> > +		if (header.rev != 1) {
> > +			dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Unsupported DVSEC revision %d\n",
> > header.rev);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		header.length = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_LEN(hdr);
> > +
> > +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_ENTRIES,
> > &header.num_entries);
> > +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_SIZE,
> > &header.entry_size);
> > +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE, &table);
> > +
> > +		header.tbir = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_BAR(table);
> > +		header.offset = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_OFFSET(table);
> > +
> > +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_DVSEC_HEADER2, &hdr);
> > +		header.id = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER2_ID(hdr);
> > +
> > +		ret = intel_vsec_add_dev(pdev, &header, quirks);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		have_devices = true;
> > +	} while (true);
> > +
> > +	return have_devices;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool intel_vsec_walk_vsec(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned long
> > quirks)
> > +{
> > +	bool have_devices = false;
> > +	int pos = 0;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		struct intel_vsec_header header;
> > +		u32 table, hdr;
> > +		int ret;
> > +
> > +		pos = pci_find_next_ext_capability(pdev, pos,
> > PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_VNDR);
> > +		if (!pos)
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_VNDR_HEADER, &hdr);
> > +
> > +		/* Support only revision 1 */
> > +		header.rev = PCI_VNDR_HEADER_REV(hdr);
> > +		if (header.rev != 1) {
> > +			dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Unsupported VSEC revision %d\n",
> > header.rev);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		header.id = PCI_VNDR_HEADER_ID(hdr);
> > +		header.length = PCI_VNDR_HEADER_LEN(hdr);
> > +
> > +		/* entry, size, and table offset are the same as DVSEC */
> > +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_ENTRIES,
> > &header.num_entries);
> > +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_SIZE,
> > &header.entry_size);
> > +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE, &table);
> > +
> > +		header.tbir = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_BAR(table);
> > +		header.offset = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_OFFSET(table);
> > +
> > +		ret = intel_vsec_add_dev(pdev, &header, quirks);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		have_devices = true;
> > +	} while (true);
> > +
> > +	return have_devices;
> > +}
> 
> I'm wondering if it makes sense to refactor each of the above to something
> like
> 
> int intel_vsec_extract_vsec(...)
> {
> 	...
> }
> 
> static bool intel_vsec_walk_dvsec(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned long quirks)
> {
> 	bool have_devices = false;
> 	int pos;
> 
> 	while ((pos = pci_find_next_ext_capability(pdev, pos,
> PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DVSEC))) {
> 		if (intel_vsec_extract_vsec())
> 			continue;
> 
> 		have_devices = true;
> 	}
> 
> 	return have_devices;
> }

Sure.

> 
> Either way, it may be worth to convert infinite loops to ones with the clear
> exit condition.

> 
> ...
> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Driver cleanup handled by intel_vsec_remove_aux() which is added
> > +	 * to the pci device as a devm action
> 
> PCI
> 
> Grammatical period at the end.

Ack

Thanks

> 
> > +	 */