| 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: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 15:30:49 +0530
From: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam@...cinc.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
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
On 8/15/2022 12:07 PM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Thanks for Your time and valuable insights CJ !!!
> 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().
Okay. Will modify accordingly and re post it.
>
>
>> + 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?
Yes It's missing. will ad it.
>
> 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()?
Okay. Will modify accordingly and re post it.
>
>> + 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?
Yes it's redundant. Will replace it with ret.
>
>> + 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.
Yes, Agree. Will update accordingly.
>
>> + 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.)
Okay.
>
>> +
>> handover = qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5);
>> if (handover)
>> qcom_adsp_pil_handover(&adsp->q6v5);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists