linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] cxl/acpi: Extract component registers of restricted hosts from RCRB

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]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:17:51 +0100
From:   Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] cxl/acpi: Extract component registers of
 restricted hosts from RCRB

On 14.11.22 13:30:01, Dan Williams wrote:
> Robert Richter wrote:

> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> > index ec178e69b18f..7a5bde81e949 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> > @@ -307,3 +307,49 @@ int cxl_find_regblock(struct pci_dev *pdev, enum cxl_regloc_type type,
> >  	return -ENODEV;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_find_regblock, CXL);
> > +
> > +resource_size_t cxl_rcrb_to_component(struct device *dev,
> > +				      resource_size_t rcrb,
> > +				      enum cxl_rcrb which)
> > +{
> > +	resource_size_t component_reg_phys;
> > +	u32 bar0, bar1;
> > +	void *addr;
> > +
> > +	if (which == CXL_RCRB_UPSTREAM)
> > +		rcrb += SZ_4K;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * RCRB's BAR[0..1] point to component block containing CXL
> > +	 * subsystem component registers. MEMBAR extraction follows
> > +	 * the PCI Base spec here, esp. 64 bit extraction and memory
> > +	 * ranges alignment (6.0, 7.5.1.2.1).
> > +	 */
> 
> A request_mem_region() is needed here to ensure ownership and expected
> sequencing of accessing the RCRB to locate the component registers, and
> accessing the RCRB to manipulate the component registers. It also helps
> to sanity check that the BIOS mapped an exclusive range for the RCRB.

Right, that is missing.

> 
> > +	addr = ioremap(rcrb, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + SZ_8);
> 
> That PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 does not belong there. It ends up being benign
> and forcing ioremap to map 12K instead of 8K, but it is a
> config-register offset, not part of the RCRB size.

Note this is BAR0 + 8 bytes, not 8k, and it does not map the whole
RCRB region but instead the first part of the config space up to
including the 64 bit BAR.

> 
> > +	if (!addr) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to map region %pr\n", addr);
> > +		return CXL_RESOURCE_NONE;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	bar0 = readl(addr + PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0);
> > +	bar1 = readl(addr + PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_1);
> > +	iounmap(addr);
> 
> ...corresponding release_mem_region() would go here.
> 
> > +
> > +	/* sanity check */
> > +	if (bar0 & (PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_1M | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_IO))
> > +		return CXL_RESOURCE_NONE;
> 
> I would have also expected:
> 
> - a sanity check for "Memory Space Enable" being set in the command
>   register.

Ok.

> 
> - an explicit check for 0xffffffff for the case when the upstream-port
>   implements "no RCRB" mode.

Yes, I left support for this to a later patch, but it's better to
check it here already and possibly fall back to reg loc DVSEC then.

> 
> - some check that BIOS initialized the BAR values post reset given these
>   BARs are invisible to the PCI core resource assignment 

What check do you have in mind here? There is already the NULL check
which would be the out-of-reset value.

Thanks,

-Robert