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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <63766d77d1ece_12cdff29499@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:20:55 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>,
        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

Robert Richter wrote:
> On 15.11.22 09:54:16, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Robert Richter wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Oh, sorry, yes, my mistake. However, there is not much value in mapping
> > less than 4K since all ioremap requests are rounded up to PAGE_SIZE.
> > Since an RCRB is only 4K per port lets just map the whole thing.
> 
> I was going to keep the ranges small to avoid conflicts with other
> requests for the same page (though request_mem_region() was missing
> yet).

What else will be conflicting the RCRB? Linux has never accessed an RCRB
in the past as far as I can see. If there is a conflict then we may need
to move this mapping to the PCI core so that it is managed like other
mmconf space.