| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:37:06 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam@...cinc.com>
Cc: agross@...nel.org, bgoswami@...cinc.com,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, judyhsiao@...omium.org,
lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
perex@...ex.cz, quic_plai@...cinc.com, quic_rohkumar@...cinc.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
swboyd@...omium.org, tiwai@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] remoteproc: qcom: Add support for memory sandbox
Le 12/08/2022 à 14:47, Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu a écrit :
> Update pil driver with SMMU mapping for allowing authorised
> memory access to ADSP firmware, by reading required memory
> regions either from device tree file or from resource table
> embedded in ADSP binary header.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam-jfJNa2p1gH1BDgjK7y7TUQ@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
> Changes since V3:
> -- Rename is_adsp_sb_needed to adsp_sandbox_needed.
> -- Add smmu unmapping in error case and in adsp stop.
> Changes since V2:
> -- Replace platform_bus_type with adsp->dev->bus.
> -- Use API of_parse_phandle_with_args() instead of of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args().
> -- Replace adsp->is_wpss with adsp->is_adsp.
> -- Update error handling in adsp_start().
>
> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 170 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> index b0a63a0..ca45d2c 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include <linux/firmware.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/iommu.h>
> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h>
> @@ -48,6 +49,8 @@
> #define LPASS_PWR_ON_REG 0x10
> #define LPASS_HALTREQ_REG 0x0
>
> +#define SID_MASK_DEFAULT 0xF
> +
> #define QDSP6SS_XO_CBCR 0x38
> #define QDSP6SS_CORE_CBCR 0x20
> #define QDSP6SS_SLEEP_CBCR 0x3c
> @@ -78,7 +81,7 @@ struct adsp_pil_data {
> struct qcom_adsp {
> struct device *dev;
> struct rproc *rproc;
> -
> + struct iommu_domain *iommu_dom;
> struct qcom_q6v5 q6v5;
>
> struct clk *xo;
> @@ -333,6 +336,155 @@ static int adsp_load(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void adsp_of_unmap_smmu(struct iommu_domain *iommu_dom, const __be32 *prop, int len)
> +{
> + unsigned long mem_phys;
> + unsigned long iova;
> + unsigned int mem_size;
> + int access_level;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> + iova = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]);
> + mem_phys = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]);
> + mem_size = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]);
> + access_level = be32_to_cpu(prop[i]);
> + iommu_unmap(iommu_dom, iova, mem_size);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(struct rproc *rproc, int len)
> +{
> + struct fw_rsc_devmem *rsc_fw;
> + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr;
> + int offset;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> + offset = rproc->table_ptr->offset[i];
> + hdr = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + offset;
> + rsc_fw = (struct fw_rsc_devmem *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr);
> +
> + iommu_unmap(rproc->domain, rsc_fw->da, rsc_fw->len);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void adsp_unmap_smmu(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
When I proposed a adsp_unmap_smmu() function, the idea was to undo
everything that is donne by adsp_map_smmu().
iommu_domain_alloc() and iommu_map(adsp->iommu_dom, ..) are not undone here.
If this make sense, it would improve the semantic, simplify the
'adsp_smmu_unmap' label in adsp_start() and avoid what looks like a leak
to me in adsp_stop().
> + struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv;
> + const __be32 *prop;
> + unsigned int len;
> +
> + prop = of_get_property(adsp->dev->of_node, "qcom,adsp-memory-regions", &len);
> + if (prop) {
In the allocation path, you have a "len /= sizeof(__be32);" which is not
here. Is it needed?
You call adsp_unmap_smmu() from the error handling path of
adsp_map_smmu(). If needed, maybe it should be part of adsp_of_unmap_smmu()?
> + adsp_of_unmap_smmu(adsp->iommu_dom, prop, len);
> + } else {
> + if (rproc->table_ptr)
> + adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(rproc, rproc->table_ptr->num);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static int adsp_map_smmu(struct qcom_adsp *adsp, struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + struct of_phandle_args args;
> + struct fw_rsc_devmem *rsc_fw;
> + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr;
> + const __be32 *prop;
> + long long sid;
> + unsigned long mem_phys;
> + unsigned long iova;
> + unsigned int mem_size;
> + unsigned int flag;
> + unsigned int len;
> + int access_level;
> + int offset;
> + int ret;
> + int rc;
Are ret and rc both needed?
> + int i;
> +
> + rc = of_parse_phandle_with_args(adsp->dev->of_node, "iommus", "#iommu-cells", 0, &args);
> + if (rc < 0)
> + sid = -1;
> + else
> + sid = args.args[0] & SID_MASK_DEFAULT;
> +
> + adsp->iommu_dom = iommu_domain_alloc(adsp->dev->bus);
> + if (!adsp->iommu_dom) {
> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to allocate iommu domain\n");
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto domain_free;
> + }
> +
> + ret = iommu_attach_device(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "could not attach device ret = %d\n", ret);
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto detach_device;
> + }
> +
> + /* Add SID configuration for ADSP Firmware to SMMU */
> + adsp->mem_phys = adsp->mem_phys | (sid << 32);
> +
> + ret = iommu_map(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_phys,
> + adsp->mem_size, IOMMU_READ | IOMMU_WRITE);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "Unable to map ADSP Physical Memory\n");
> + goto sid_unmap;
> + }
> +
> + prop = of_get_property(adsp->dev->of_node, "qcom,adsp-memory-regions", &len);
> + if (prop) {
> + len /= sizeof(__be32);
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> + iova = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]);
> + mem_phys = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]);
> + mem_size = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]);
> + access_level = be32_to_cpu(prop[i]);
> +
> + if (access_level)
> + flag = IOMMU_READ | IOMMU_WRITE;
> + else
> + flag = IOMMU_READ;
> +
> + ret = iommu_map(adsp->iommu_dom, iova, mem_phys, mem_size, flag);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to map addr = %p mem_size = %x\n",
> + &(mem_phys), mem_size);
> + goto smmu_unmap;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + if (!rproc->table_ptr)
> + goto sid_unmap;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < rproc->table_ptr->num; i++) {
> + offset = rproc->table_ptr->offset[i];
> + hdr = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + offset;
> + rsc_fw = (struct fw_rsc_devmem *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr);
> +
> + ret = iommu_map(rproc->domain, rsc_fw->da, rsc_fw->pa,
> + rsc_fw->len, rsc_fw->flags);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("%s; unable to map adsp memory address\n", __func__);
> + goto rproc_smmu_unmap;
> + }
> + }
> + }
If you introduce a adsp_of_unmap_smmu() and adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(),
would it make things more readable to have the same kind of functions
when allocating the resources?
Symmetry often helps.
> + return 0;
Add an empty new line here?
> +rproc_smmu_unmap:
> + adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(rproc, i);
> + goto sid_unmap;
> +smmu_unmap:
> + adsp_of_unmap_smmu(adsp->iommu_dom, prop, i);
> +sid_unmap:
> + iommu_unmap(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_size);
> +detach_device:
> + iommu_domain_free(adsp->iommu_dom);
> +domain_free:
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +
> static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv;
> @@ -343,9 +495,16 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + if (adsp->adsp_sandbox_needed) {
> + ret = adsp_map_smmu(adsp, rproc);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "ADSP smmu mapping failed\n");
> + goto disable_irqs;
> + }
> + }
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(adsp->xo);
> if (ret)
> - goto disable_irqs;
> + goto adsp_smmu_unmap;
>
> ret = qcom_rproc_pds_enable(adsp, adsp->proxy_pds,
> adsp->proxy_pd_count);
> @@ -401,6 +560,12 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> qcom_rproc_pds_disable(adsp, adsp->proxy_pds, adsp->proxy_pd_count);
> disable_xo_clk:
> clk_disable_unprepare(adsp->xo);
> +adsp_smmu_unmap:
> + if (adsp->adsp_sandbox_needed) {
> + iommu_unmap(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_size);
> + adsp_unmap_smmu(rproc);
> + iommu_domain_free(adsp->iommu_dom);
> + }
> disable_irqs:
> qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5);
>
> @@ -429,6 +594,9 @@ static int adsp_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> if (ret)
> dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to shutdown: %d\n", ret);
>
> + if (adsp->adsp_sandbox_needed)
> + adsp_unmap_smmu(rproc);
No need to call iommu_unmap() and iommu_domain_free() here?
(this is the same comment as the one in adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(). This is
just a blind guess based on symmetry of the code.)
> +
> handover = qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5);
> if (handover)
> qcom_adsp_pil_handover(&adsp->q6v5);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists