| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZR0/Xis6Bzh+iAGt@sunil-laptop>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:03:02 +0530
From: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Atish Kumar Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next 1/4] RISC-V: ACPI: Enhance acpi_os_ioremap with
MMIO remapping
Hi Alex,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:53:12PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi Sunil,
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 7:00 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
> >
> > Enhance the acpi_os_ioremap() to support opregions in MMIO space. Also,
> > have strict checks using EFI memory map to allow remapping the RAM similar
> > to arm64.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
> > arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > index d607ab0f7c6d..ac039cf8af7a 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ config RISCV
> > select ARCH_HAS_TICK_BROADCAST if GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
> > select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL
> > select ARCH_HAS_VDSO_DATA
> > + select ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK
>
> Shouldn't we restrict this to ACPI?
>
Sure, Let me update.
> > select ARCH_OPTIONAL_KERNEL_RWX if ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
> > select ARCH_OPTIONAL_KERNEL_RWX_DEFAULT
> > select ARCH_STACKWALK
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > index 56cb2c986c48..e619edc8b0cc 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > @@ -14,9 +14,10 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/acpi.h>
> > +#include <linux/efi.h>
> > #include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/memblock.h>
> > #include <linux/pci.h>
> > -#include <linux/efi.h>
> >
> > int acpi_noirq = 1; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */
> > int acpi_disabled = 1;
> > @@ -217,7 +218,89 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(void __iomem *map, unsigned long size)
> >
> > void __iomem *acpi_os_ioremap(acpi_physical_address phys, acpi_size size)
> > {
> > - return (void __iomem *)memremap(phys, size, MEMREMAP_WB);
> > + efi_memory_desc_t *md, *region = NULL;
> > + pgprot_t prot;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!efi_enabled(EFI_MEMMAP)))
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) {
> > + u64 end = md->phys_addr + (md->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +
> > + if (phys < md->phys_addr || phys >= end)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (phys + size > end) {
> > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "requested region covers multiple EFI memory regions\n");
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > + region = md;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * It is fine for AML to remap regions that are not represented in the
> > + * EFI memory map at all, as it only describes normal memory, and MMIO
> > + * regions that require a virtual mapping to make them accessible to
> > + * the EFI runtime services.
> > + */
> > + prot = PAGE_KERNEL_IO;
> > + if (region) {
> > + switch (region->type) {
> > + case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
> > + case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
> > + case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
> > + case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
> > + case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
> > + case EFI_PERSISTENT_MEMORY:
> > + if (memblock_is_map_memory(phys) ||
> > + !memblock_is_region_memory(phys, size)) {
> > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "requested region covers kernel memory\n");
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Mapping kernel memory is permitted if the region in
> > + * question is covered by a single memblock with the
> > + * NOMAP attribute set: this enables the use of ACPI
> > + * table overrides passed via initramfs.
> > + * This particular use case only requires read access.
> > + */
> > + fallthrough;
> > +
> > + case EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE:
> > + /*
> > + * This would be unusual, but not problematic per se,
> > + * as long as we take care not to create a writable
> > + * mapping for executable code.
> > + */
> > + prot = PAGE_KERNEL_RO;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY:
> > + /*
> > + * ACPI reclaim memory is used to pass firmware tables
> > + * and other data that is intended for consumption by
> > + * the OS only, which may decide it wants to reclaim
> > + * that memory and use it for something else. We never
> > + * do that, but we usually add it to the linear map
> > + * anyway, in which case we should use the existing
> > + * mapping.
> > + */
> > + if (memblock_is_map_memory(phys))
> > + return (void __iomem *)__va(phys);
> > + fallthrough;
> > +
> > + default:
> > + if (region->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WB)
> > + prot = PAGE_KERNEL;
> > + else if ((region->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WC) ||
> > + (region->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WT))
> > + prot = pgprot_writecombine(PAGE_KERNEL);
>
> I have to ask: why is write-through mapped to write-combined here?
>
IIUC, write-through ensures the copy in the cache and memory are always
in sync. So, instead of using WB, non-cacheable WC is used as RISC-V
doesn't really define these attributes. Let me know if this is not
correct.
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ioremap_prot(phys, size, pgprot_val(prot));
> > }
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
>
> Like Andrew said in v1, too bad we can't merge that with arm64 instead
> of duplicating.
>
I agree. But since acpi_os_ioremap() is supposed to be arch function, I
kept is separate. Also, I need feedback from Ard whether we should make
it common and where to add this common function.
> But otherwise, you can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
>
Thanks!
Sunil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists