linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 extended names protocols support

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: <f194f9b6-578d-ae08-16c3-6d464da10452@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 10:19:53 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        sudeep.holla@....com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, etienne.carriere@...aro.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 extended names
 protocols support

On 6/15/22 09:29, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:10:03AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 6/15/22 02:40, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:45:11AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/30/2022 5:05 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>>>>>> Using the common protocol helper implementation add support for all new
>>>>>> SCMIv3.1 extended names commands related to all protocols with the
>>>>>> exception of SENSOR_AXIS_GET_NAME.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This causes the following splat on a platform where regulators fail to
>>>>> initialize:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Florian,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the report.
>>>>
>>>> It seems a memory error while allocating so it was not meant to be
>>>> solved by the fixes, anyway, I've never seen this splat in my testing
>>>> and at first sight I cannot see anything wrong in the devm_k* calls
>>>> inside scmi_voltage_protocol_init...is there any particular config in
>>>> your setup ?
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, the WARNING line 5402 seems to match v5.19-rc1 and it has
>>>> slightly changed with -rc-1, so I'll try rebasing on that at first and
>>>> see if I can reproduce the issue locally.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just re-tested the series rebased on v519-rc1 plus fixes and I cannot
>>> reproduce in my setup with a few (~9) good and bad voltage domains.
>>>
>>> How many voltage domains are advertised by the platform in your setup ?
>>
>> There are 11 voltage regulators on this platform, and of course, now that I
>> am trying to reproduce the splat I reported I just cannot anymore... I will
>> let you know if there is anything that needs to be done. Thanks for being
>> responsive as usual!
> 
> ... you're welcome...
> 
> I'm trying to figure out where an abnormal mem request could happen...

I think the problem is/was with the number of voltage domains being 
reported which was way too big and passed directly, without any clamping 
to devm_kcalloc() resulting the splat indicating that the allocation was 
beyond the MAX_ORDER. The specification allows for up to 2^16 domains 
which would still be way too much to allocate using kmalloc() so we 
could/should consider vmalloc() here eventually?

In all likelihood though we probably won't find a system with 65k 
voltage domains.

> 
> can you try adding this (for brutal debugging) when you try ?
> (...just to rule out funny fw replies.... :D)

Sure, nothing weird coming out and it succeeded in enumerating all of 
the regulators, I smell a transient issue with our firmware 
implementation, maybe...

[    0.560544] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.560617] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.560673] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.560730] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.560881] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.560940] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.560996] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.561054] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.561110] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.561168] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.561225] arm-scmi brcm_scmi@0: num_returned:1  num_remaining:0
[    0.561652] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_2 
registered for domain [2]
[    0.561858] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_3 
registered for domain [3]
[    0.562030] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_4 
registered for domain [4]
[    0.562190] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_5 
registered for domain [5]
[    0.564427] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_6 
registered for domain [6]
[    0.564638] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_7 
registered for domain [7]
[    0.564817] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_8 
registered for domain [8]
[    0.565030] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_9 
registered for domain [9]
[    0.565191] scmi-regulator scmi_dev.2: Regulator stb_vreg_10 
registered for domain [10]

-- 
Florian