| 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: <fe8a7217-51af-1102-80eb-db4475bb47fc@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 17:11:24 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
To: <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] remoteproc: qcom: pas: make region assign more
generic
On 11/2/2023 3:56 PM, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 15:42, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/31/2023 10:36 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 30/10/2023 14:10, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2023 3:33 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> The current memory region assign only supports a single
>>>>> memory region.
>>>>>
>>>>> But new platforms introduces more regions to make the
>>>>> memory requirements more flexible for various use cases.
>>>>> Those new platforms also shares the memory region between the
>>>>> DSP and HLOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> To handle this, make the region assign more generic in order
>>>>> to support more than a single memory region and also permit
>>>>> setting the regions permissions as shared.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 102
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>>> b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>>> index 913a5d2068e8..4829fd26e17d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
>>>>> #define ADSP_DECRYPT_SHUTDOWN_DELAY_MS 100
>>>>> +#define MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT 2
>>>>> +
>>>>> struct adsp_data {
>>>>> int crash_reason_smem;
>>>>> const char *firmware_name;
>>>>> @@ -51,6 +53,9 @@ struct adsp_data {
>>>>> int ssctl_id;
>>>>> int region_assign_idx;
>>>>> + int region_assign_count;
>>>>> + bool region_assign_shared;
>>>>> + int region_assign_vmid;
>>>>> };
>>>>> struct qcom_adsp {
>>>>> @@ -87,15 +92,18 @@ struct qcom_adsp {
>>>>> phys_addr_t dtb_mem_phys;
>>>>> phys_addr_t mem_reloc;
>>>>> phys_addr_t dtb_mem_reloc;
>>>>> - phys_addr_t region_assign_phys;
>>>>> + phys_addr_t region_assign_phys[MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT];
>>>>> void *mem_region;
>>>>> void *dtb_mem_region;
>>>>> size_t mem_size;
>>>>> size_t dtb_mem_size;
>>>>> - size_t region_assign_size;
>>>>> + size_t region_assign_size[MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT];
>>>>> int region_assign_idx;
>>>>> - u64 region_assign_perms;
>>>>> + int region_assign_count;
>>>>> + bool region_assign_shared;
>>>>> + int region_assign_vmid;
>>>>> + u64 region_assign_perms[MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT];
>>>>> struct qcom_rproc_glink glink_subdev;
>>>>> struct qcom_rproc_subdev smd_subdev;
>>>>> @@ -590,37 +598,52 @@ static int adsp_alloc_memory_region(struct
>>>>> qcom_adsp *adsp)
>>>>> static int adsp_assign_memory_region(struct qcom_adsp *adsp)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct reserved_mem *rmem = NULL;
>>>>> - struct qcom_scm_vmperm perm;
>>>>> + struct qcom_scm_vmperm perm[MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT];
>>>>> + unsigned int perm_size = 1;
>>>>
>>>> AFAICS, not need of initialization.
>>>
>>> Indeed, removed
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> struct device_node *node;
>>>>> - int ret;
>>>>> + int offset, ret;
>>>>
>>>> Nit: one variable per line.
>>>
>>> Done
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> if (!adsp->region_assign_idx)
>>>>
>>>> Not related to this patch..
>>>> Should not this be valid only for > 1 ?
>>>
>>> I don't understand, only region_assign_idx > 1 triggers a memory_assign,
>>> and this check discards configurations with region_assign_idx == 0 as
>>> expected.
>>
>> Ah, you can ignore the comments, I got the intention after commenting
>> here ..
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> - node = of_parse_phandle(adsp->dev->of_node, "memory-region",
>>>>> adsp->region_assign_idx);
>>>>> - if (node)
>>>>> - rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(node);
>>>>> - of_node_put(node);
>>>>> - if (!rmem) {
>>>>> - dev_err(adsp->dev, "unable to resolve shareable
>>>>> memory-region\n");
>>>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> + for (offset = 0; offset < adsp->region_assign_count; ++offset) {
>>>>> + struct reserved_mem *rmem = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + node = of_parse_phandle(adsp->dev->of_node, "memory-region",
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_idx + offset);
>>>>> + if (node)
>>>>> + rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(node);
>>>>> + of_node_put(node);
>>>>> + if (!rmem) {
>>>>> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "unable to resolve shareable
>>>>> memory-region index %d\n",
>>>>> + offset);
>>>>> + return -EINVAL; > + }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - perm.vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_MSS_MSA;
>>>>> - perm.perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW;
>>>>> + if (adsp->region_assign_shared) {
>>>>> + perm[0].vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS;
>>>>> + perm[0].perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW;
>>>>> + perm[1].vmid = adsp->region_assign_vmid;
>>>>> + perm[1].perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW;
>>>>> + perm_size = 2;
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + perm[0].vmid = adsp->region_assign_vmid;
>>>>> + perm[0].perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW;
>>>>> + perm_size = 1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> - adsp->region_assign_phys = rmem->base;
>>>>> - adsp->region_assign_size = rmem->size;
>>>>> - adsp->region_assign_perms = BIT(QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS);
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_phys[offset] = rmem->base;
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_size[offset] = rmem->size;
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_perms[offset] = BIT(QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS);
>>>>
>>>> Do we need array for this, is this changing ?
>>>
>>> We need to keep region_assign_perms for unassign, but for the other 2
>>> we would
>>> need to duplicate the code from adsp_assign_memory_region into
>>> adsp_unassign_memory_region.
>>
>> Thanks got it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - ret = qcom_scm_assign_mem(adsp->region_assign_phys,
>>>>> - adsp->region_assign_size,
>>>>> - &adsp->region_assign_perms,
>>>>> - &perm, 1);
>>>>> - if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> - dev_err(adsp->dev, "assign memory failed\n");
>>>>> - return ret;
>>>>> + ret = qcom_scm_assign_mem(adsp->region_assign_phys[offset],
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_size[offset],
>>>>> + &adsp->region_assign_perms[offset],
>>>>> + perm, perm_size);
>>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "assign memory %d failed\n", offset);
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> @@ -629,20 +652,22 @@ static int adsp_assign_memory_region(struct
>>>>> qcom_adsp *adsp)
>>>>> static void adsp_unassign_memory_region(struct qcom_adsp *adsp)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct qcom_scm_vmperm perm;
>>>>> - int ret;
>>>>> + int offset, ret;
>>>>> - if (!adsp->region_assign_idx)
>>>>> + if (!adsp->region_assign_idx || adsp->region_assign_shared)
>>>>> return;
>>>>> - perm.vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS;
>>>>> - perm.perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW;
>>>>> + for (offset = 0; offset < adsp->region_assign_count; ++offset) {
>>>>> + perm.vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS;
>>>>> + perm.perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW;
>>>>
>>>>> - ret = qcom_scm_assign_mem(adsp->region_assign_phys,
>>>>> - adsp->region_assign_size,
>>>>> - &adsp->region_assign_perms,
>>>>> - &perm, 1);
>>>>> - if (ret < 0)
>>>>> - dev_err(adsp->dev, "unassign memory failed\n");
>>>>> + ret = qcom_scm_assign_mem(adsp->region_assign_phys[offset],
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_size[offset],
>>>>> + &adsp->region_assign_perms[offset],
>>>>> + &perm, 1);
>>>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>>>> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "unassign memory failed\n");
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> static int adsp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>> @@ -696,6 +721,9 @@ static int adsp_probe(struct platform_device
>>>>> *pdev)
>>>>> adsp->info_name = desc->sysmon_name;
>>>>> adsp->decrypt_shutdown = desc->decrypt_shutdown;
>>>>> adsp->region_assign_idx = desc->region_assign_idx;
>>
>> Should this also need
>> min_t(int, MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT - 1, desc->region_assign_idx);
>> as no where boundary check is being done.
I was wrong here.. MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT was relative to assign index.
>
> region_idx is the offset in the memory-region DT property where assigned
> memory starts,
> so for example there's 2 memory regions on SM8650 CDSP, but only a
> single shared memory region
> so we have the following:
> - region_assign_idx = 2
> - region_assign_count = 1
> and in DT:
> memory-region = <&cdsp_mem>, <&q6_cdsp_dtb_mem>, <&global_sync_mem>;
> -------------------------------------------------/\
> region_assign_idx
> ------------------------------------------------[ ]
> region_assign_count
>
> and for MPSS, there's 2 of both:
> - region_assign_idx = 2
> - region_assign_count = 2
> and in DT:
> memory-region = <&mpss_mem>, <&q6_mpss_dtb_mem>, <&mpss_dsm_mem>,
> <&mpss_dsm_mem_2>;
> -------------------------------------------------/\
> region_assign_idx
>
> ------------------------------------------------[ ]
> region_assign_count
>
> so we cannot add a bounday check.
>
> In any case of_parse_phandle() will do the boundary check if DT has less
> phandles than expected.
Thanks for explaining.
-Mukesh
>
> Neil
>
>>
>> -Mukesh
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_count = min_t(int, MAX_ASSIGN_COUNT,
>>>>> desc->region_assign_count);
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_vmid = desc->region_assign_vmid;
>>>>> + adsp->region_assign_shared = desc->region_assign_shared;
>>>>> if (dtb_fw_name) {
>>>>> adsp->dtb_firmware_name = dtb_fw_name;
>>>>> adsp->dtb_pas_id = desc->dtb_pas_id;
>>>>> @@ -1163,6 +1191,8 @@ static const struct adsp_data
>>>>> sm8550_mpss_resource = {
>>>>> .sysmon_name = "modem",
>>>>> .ssctl_id = 0x12,
>>>>> .region_assign_idx = 2,
>>>>> + .region_assign_count = 1,
>>>>> + .region_assign_vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_MSS_MSA,
>>>>> };
>>>>> static const struct of_device_id adsp_of_match[] = {
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Mukesh
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Neil
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists