linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT] scsi: pm8001: Fix FW crash for maxcpus=1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2746563e-28ce-b328-3494-f91ace1599f1@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 11:28:14 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        <jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com>, <Ajish.Koshy@...rochip.com>,
        <Viswas.G@...rochip.com>
CC:     <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <vishakhavc@...gle.com>, <ipylypiv@...gle.com>,
        <Ruksar.devadi@...rochip.com>,
        <Vasanthalakshmi.Tharmarajan@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT] scsi: pm8001: Fix FW crash for maxcpus=1

On 05/01/2022 04:03, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 1/5/22 03:26, John Garry wrote:
>> According to the comment in check_fw_ready() we should not check the
>> IOP1_READY field in register SCRATCH_PAD_1 for 8008 or 8009 controllers.
>>
>> However we check this very field in process_oq() for processing the highest
>> index interrupt vector. Change that function to not check IOP1_READY for
>> those mentioned controllers, but do check ILA_READY in both cases.
>>
>> The reason I assume that this was not hit earlier was because we always
>> allocated 64 MSI(X), and just did not pass the vector index check in
>> process_oq(), i.e.  the handler never ran for vector index 63.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.garry@...wei.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.c b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.c
>> index 2101fc5761c3..77b8bb30615b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.c
>> @@ -4162,9 +4162,16 @@ static int process_oq(struct pm8001_hba_info *pm8001_ha, u8 vec)
>>   	u32 regval;
>>   
>>   	if (vec == (pm8001_ha->max_q_num - 1)) {
>> +		u32 mipsall_ready;
>> +
>> +		if ((pm8001_ha->chip_id == chip_8008) ||
>> +		    (pm8001_ha->chip_id == chip_8009))
> nit: no need for the inner brackets here.

ok, I can fix that.

But I would also like opinion from microchip guys/maintainer on why this 
code is here at all. Seems strange in the way we check in this register 
in the interrupt handler for only a specific vector and, also, why we 
check at all in an interrupt handler.
> 
>> +			mipsall_ready = SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY_8PORT;
>> +		else
>> +			mipsall_ready = SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY_16PORT;
>> +
>>   		regval = pm8001_cr32(pm8001_ha, 0, MSGU_SCRATCH_PAD_1);
>> -		if ((regval & SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY) !=
>> -					SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY) {
>> +		if ((regval & mipsall_ready) != mipsall_ready) {
>>   			pm8001_ha->controller_fatal_error = true;
>>   			pm8001_dbg(pm8001_ha, FAIL,
>>   				   "Firmware Fatal error! Regval:0x%x\n",
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.h b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.h
>> index c7e5d93bea92..c41ed039c92a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.h
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm80xx_hwi.h
>> @@ -1405,8 +1405,12 @@ typedef struct SASProtocolTimerConfig SASProtocolTimerConfig_t;
>>   #define SCRATCH_PAD_BOOT_LOAD_SUCCESS	0x0
>>   #define SCRATCH_PAD_IOP0_READY		0xC00
>>   #define SCRATCH_PAD_IOP1_READY		0x3000
>> -#define SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY	(SCRATCH_PAD_IOP1_READY | \
>> +#define SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY_16PORT	(SCRATCH_PAD_IOP1_READY | \
>>   					SCRATCH_PAD_IOP0_READY | \
>> +					SCRATCH_PAD_ILA_READY | \
>> +					SCRATCH_PAD_RAAE_READY)
>> +#define SCRATCH_PAD_MIPSALL_READY_8PORT	(SCRATCH_PAD_IOP0_READY | \
>> +					SCRATCH_PAD_ILA_READY | \
>>   					SCRATCH_PAD_RAAE_READY)
>>   
>>   /* boot loader state */
> Otherwise, looks OK to me.
> I tested with and without max_cpus=1 with a ATTO Technology, Inc.
> ExpressSAS 12Gb/s SAS/SATA HBA (rev 06) adapter and everything is OK.
> That adapter uses chip_8072 though, not 8008 or 8009.
> 
> Feel free to add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
> Tested-by: Damien Le Moal<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>

Thanks!

john