linux-kernel - Re: PIC probing code from e179f6914152 failing

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: <32bcaa8a-0413-4aa4-97a0-189830da8654@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 09:41:06 -0500
From:   Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        hpa@...ux.intel.com, dlazar@...il.com
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: PIC probing code from e179f6914152 failing

On 10/25/2023 04:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23 2023 at 17:59, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 19 2023 at 16:20, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>>    struct legacy_pic null_legacy_pic = {
>>> -       .nr_legacy_irqs = 0,
>>> +       .nr_legacy_irqs = 1,
>>>           .chip = &dummy_irq_chip,
>>>           .mask = legacy_pic_uint_noop,
>>>           .unmask = legacy_pic_uint_noop,
>>>
>>> I think it's cleaner than changing all the places that use
>>> nr_legacy_irqs().
>>
>> No. It's not cleaner. It's a hack and you still need to audit all places
>> which depend on nr_legacy_irqs(). Also why '1'? You could as well use
>> '16', no?
> 
> So I sat down and did a thorough analysis of legacy PIC dependencies.
> 
> Unfortunately this is an unholy mess and sprinkled all over the place,
> so there is no trivial way to resolve this quickly. This needs a proper
> overhaul to decouple the actual PIC driver selection from the fact that
> the kernel runs on a i8259 equipped hardware and therefore needs to
> honour the legacy PNP overrides etc.
> 
> The probing itself is to stay in order to avoid sprinkling weird
> conditions and NULL PIC selections all over the place.
> 
> It could be argued that the probe function should try to initialize the
> PIC, but that's overkill for scenarios where the PIC does not exist.
> 
> Though it turns out that ACPI/MADT is helpful here because the MADT
> header has a flags field which denotes in bit 0, whether the system has
> a 8259 setup or not.
> 
> This allows to override the probe for now until we actually resolved the
> dependency problems in a clean way.
> 
> Untested patch below.

+David from the bugzilla.

I checked his acpidump and I do think this will work for him.

[024h 0036   4]           Local Apic Address : FEE00000
[028h 0040   4]        Flags (decoded below) : 00000001
                          PC-AT Compatibility : 1


David - can you see if the below helps your hardware?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>          tglx
> ---
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/i8259.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/i8259.h
> @@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ struct legacy_pic {
>   	void (*make_irq)(unsigned int irq);
>   };
>   
> +void legacy_pic_pcat_compat(void);
> +
>   extern struct legacy_pic *legacy_pic;
>   extern struct legacy_pic null_legacy_pic;
>   
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,9 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_madt(struct
>   		pr_debug("Local APIC address 0x%08x\n", madt->address);
>   	}
>   
> +	if (madt->flags & ACPI_MADT_PCAT_COMPAT)
> +		legacy_pic_pcat_compat();
> +
>   	/* ACPI 6.3 and newer support the online capable bit. */
>   	if (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision > 6 ||
>   	    (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision == 6 &&
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/i8259.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i8259.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>    */
>   static void init_8259A(int auto_eoi);
>   
> +static bool pcat_compat __ro_after_init;
>   static int i8259A_auto_eoi;
>   DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(i8259A_lock);
>   
> @@ -299,15 +300,32 @@ static void unmask_8259A(void)
>   
>   static int probe_8259A(void)
>   {
> +	unsigned char new_val, probe_val = ~(1 << PIC_CASCADE_IR);
>   	unsigned long flags;
> -	unsigned char probe_val = ~(1 << PIC_CASCADE_IR);
> -	unsigned char new_val;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If MADT has the PCAT_COMPAT flag set, then do not bother probing
> +	 * for the PIC. Some BIOSes leave the PIC uninitialized and probing
> +	 * fails.
> +	 *
> +	 * Right now this causes problems as quite some code depends on
> +	 * nr_legacy_irqs() > 0 or has_legacy_pic() == true. This is silly
> +	 * when the system has an IO/APIC because then PIC is not required
> +	 * at all, except for really old machines where the timer interrupt
> +	 * must be routed through the PIC. So just pretend that the PIC is
> +	 * there and let legacy_pic->init() initialize it for nothing.
> +	 *
> +	 * Alternatively this could just try to initialize the PIC and
> +	 * repeat the probe, but for cases where there is no PIC that's
> +	 * just pointless.
> +	 */
> +	if (pcat_compat)
> +		return nr_legacy_irqs();
> +
>   	/*
> -	 * Check to see if we have a PIC.
> -	 * Mask all except the cascade and read
> -	 * back the value we just wrote. If we don't
> -	 * have a PIC, we will read 0xff as opposed to the
> -	 * value we wrote.
> +	 * Check to see if we have a PIC.  Mask all except the cascade and
> +	 * read back the value we just wrote. If we don't have a PIC, we
> +	 * will read 0xff as opposed to the value we wrote.
>   	 */
>   	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&i8259A_lock, flags);
>   
> @@ -429,5 +447,9 @@ static int __init i8259A_init_ops(void)
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> -
>   device_initcall(i8259A_init_ops);
> +
> +void __init legacy_pic_pcat_compat(void)
> +{
> +	pcat_compat = true;
> +}
>