linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 01/39] Kconfig: introduce HAS_IOPORT option and select it as necessary

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: <2eba36c5dbfb0f92cd567237170fd235b7aa5e9c.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 06 May 2022 14:55:52 +0200
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "open list:ALPHA PORT" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:M68K ARCHITECTURE" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:PARISC ARCHITECTURE" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "open list:RISC-V ARCHITECTURE" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:SUPERH" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SPARC + UltraSPARC (sparc/sparc64)" 
        <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/39] Kconfig: introduce HAS_IOPORT option and select
 it as necessary

On Fri, 2022-05-06 at 13:27 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > >  If this is PCI/PCIe indeed, then an I/O access is just a different bit
> > > pattern put on the bus/in the TLP in the address phase.  So what is there
> > > inherent to the s390 architecture that prevents that different bit pattern
> > > from being used?
> > 
> > The hardware design for PCI on s390 is very different from any other
> > architecture, and more abstract. Rather than implementing MMIO register
> > access as pointer dereference, this is a separate CPU instruction that
> > takes a device/bar plus offset as arguments rather than a pointer, and
> > Linux encodes this back into a fake __iomem token.
> 
>  OK, that seems to me like a reasonable and quite a clean design (on the 
> hardware side).
> 
>  So what happens if the instruction is given an I/O rather than memory BAR 
> as the relevant argument?  Is the address space indicator bit (bit #0) 
> simply ignored or what?

See my answer to Arnd for some more background but there simply isn't a
way to formulate an I/O access. In the old style PCI instructions the
BAR number and the function handle are put in a register before the
access. BAR number 15 is used to access config space. If there is no
BAR for that number the instruction fails with a non-zero CC.

> 
> > >  But that has nothing to do with the presence or absence of any specific
> > > processor instructions.  It's just a limitation of bus glue.  So I guess
> > > it's just that all PCI/PCIe glue logic implementations for s390 have such
> > > a limitation, right?
> > 
> > There are separate instructions for PCI memory and config space, but
> > no instructions for I/O space, or for non-PCI MMIO that it could be mapped
> > into.
> 
>  The PCI configuration space was retrofitted into x86 systems (and is 
> accessed in an awkward manner with them), but with a new design such a 
> clean approach is most welcome IMHO.  Thank you for your explanation.
> 
>   Maciej

Well our design is a retrofit too considering s390x is a direct
decendent of IBM System/360 which one could argue to have been the
first ISA. But yes as PCI support was only added with PCIe and with a
machine level hypervisor already in place we do get shielded a lot from
the gritty details.