linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 29/35] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match

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: <20230914160223.0000782f@Huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:02:23 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC:     <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <x86@...nel.org>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        <jianyong.wu@....com>, <justin.he@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 29/35] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from
 gic_acpi_match_gicc()

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 16:38:17 +0000
James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:

> gic_acpi_match_gicc() is only called via gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions().
> It should only count the number of enabled redistributors, but it
> also tries to sanity check the GICC entry, currently returning an
> error if the Enabled bit is set, but the gicr_base_address is zero.
> 
> Adding support for the online-capable bit to the sanity check
> complicates it, for no benefit. The existing check implicitly
> depends on gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions() previous failing to find
> any GICR regions (as it is valid to have gicr_base_address of zero if
> the redistributors are described via a GICR entry).
> 
> Instead of complicating the check, remove it. Failures that happen
> at this point cause the irqchip not to register, meaning no irqs
> can be requested. The kernel grinds to a panic() pretty quickly.
> 
> Without the check, MADT tables that exhibit this problem are still
> caught by gic_populate_rdist(), which helpfully also prints what
> went wrong:
> | CPU4: mpidr 100 has no re-distributor!
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 18 ++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> index 72d3cdebdad1..0f54811262eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> @@ -2415,21 +2415,15 @@ static int __init gic_acpi_match_gicc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If GICC is enabled and has valid gicr base address, then it means
> -	 * GICR base is presented via GICC
> +	 * GICR base is presented via GICC. The redistributor is only known to
> +	 * be accessible if the GICC is marked as enabled. If this bit is not
> +	 * set, we'd need to add the redistributor at runtime, which isn't
> +	 * supported.
>  	 */
> -	if (acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc) && gicc->gicr_base_address) {
> +	if (gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED && gicc->gicr_base_address)

Going in circles...

>  		acpi_data.enabled_rdists++;
> -		return 0;
> -	}
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * It's perfectly valid firmware can pass disabled GICC entry, driver
> -	 * should not treat as errors, skip the entry instead of probe fail.
> -	 */
> -	if (!acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc))
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	return -ENODEV;
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int __init gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(void)