| 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: <47b12319-54c7-46d4-88b3-0f88c4183306@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:37:56 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Elad Nachman <enachman@...vell.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"thunder.leizhen@...wei.com" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
"bhe@...hat.com" <bhe@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"yajun.deng@...ux.dev" <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>,
"chris.zjh@...wei.com" <chris.zjh@...wei.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix SOCs with DDR starting above
zero
On 1/4/24 10:34, Elad Nachman wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:29 PM
>> To: Elad Nachman <enachman@...vell.com>; Will Deacon
>> <will@...nel.org>
>> Cc: catalin.marinas@....com; thunder.leizhen@...wei.com;
>> bhe@...hat.com; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; yajun.deng@...ux.dev;
>> chris.zjh@...wei.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-
>> kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix SOCs with DDR starting above
>> zero
>>
>> On 1/4/24 04:38, Elad Nachman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 8:32 PM
>>>> To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>; Elad Nachman
>>>> <enachman@...vell.com>
>>>> Cc: catalin.marinas@....com; thunder.leizhen@...wei.com;
>>>> bhe@...hat.com; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; yajun.deng@...ux.dev;
>>>> chris.zjh@...wei.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-
>>>> kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix SOCs with DDR starting above
>>>> zero
>>>>
>>>> External Email
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> On 1/3/24 09:45, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 07:00:02PM +0200, Elad Nachman wrote:
>>>>>> From: Elad Nachman <enachman@...vell.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some SOCs, like the Marvell AC5/X/IM, have a combination
>>>>>> of DDR starting at 0x2_0000_0000 coupled with DMA controllers
>>>>>> limited to 31 and 32 bit of addressing.
>>>>>> This requires to properly arrange ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32 for
>>>>>> these SOCs, so swiotlb and coherent DMA allocation would work
>>>>>> properly.
>>>>>> Change initialization so device tree dma zone bits are taken as
>>>>>> function of offset from DRAM start, and when calculating the
>>>>>> maximal zone physical RAM address for physical DDR starting above
>>>>>> 32-bit, combine the physical address start plus the zone mask
>>>>>> passed as parameter.
>>>>>> This creates the proper zone splitting for these SOCs:
>>>>>> 0..2GB for ZONE_DMA
>>>>>> 2GB..4GB for ZONE_DMA32
>>>>>> 4GB..8GB for ZONE_NORMAL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Elad Nachman <enachman@...vell.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>>>> index 74c1db8ce271..8288c778916e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>>>> @@ -115,20 +115,21 @@ static void __init
>>>> arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * Return the maximum physical address for a zone accessible by the
>>>> given bits
>>>>>> - * limit. If DRAM starts above 32-bit, expand the zone to the maximum
>>>>>> - * available memory, otherwise cap it at 32-bit.
>>>>>> + * limit. If DRAM starts above 32-bit, expand the zone to the available
>>>> memory
>>>>>> + * start limited by the zone bits mask, otherwise cap it at 32-bit.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> static phys_addr_t __init max_zone_phys(unsigned int zone_bits)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> phys_addr_t zone_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(zone_bits);
>>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_start = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
>>>>>> + phys_addr_t phys_end = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (phys_start > U32_MAX)
>>>>>> - zone_mask = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
>>>>>> + zone_mask = phys_start | zone_mask;
>>>>>> else if (phys_start > zone_mask)
>>>>>> zone_mask = U32_MAX;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - return min(zone_mask, memblock_end_of_DRAM() - 1) + 1;
>>>>>> + return min(zone_mask, phys_end - 1) + 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static void __init zone_sizes_init(void)
>>>>>> @@ -140,7 +141,16 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(void)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>>>>>> acpi_zone_dma_bits =
>>>> fls64(acpi_iort_dma_get_max_cpu_address());
>>>>>> - dt_zone_dma_bits = fls64(of_dma_get_max_cpu_address(NULL));
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * When calculating the dma zone bits from the device tree, subtract
>>>>>> + * the DRAM start address, in case it does not start from address
>>>>>> + * zero. This way. we pass only the zone size related bits to
>>>>>> + * max_zone_phys(), which will add them to the base of the DRAM.
>>>>>> + * This prevents miscalculations on arm64 SOCs which combines
>>>>>> + * DDR starting above 4GB with memory controllers limited to
>>>>>> + * 32-bits or less:
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + dt_zone_dma_bits = fls64(of_dma_get_max_cpu_address(NULL) -
>>>> memblock_start_of_DRAM());
>>>>>> zone_dma_bits = min3(32U, dt_zone_dma_bits,
>>>> acpi_zone_dma_bits);
>>>>>> arm64_dma_phys_limit = max_zone_phys(zone_dma_bits);
>>>>>> max_zone_pfns[ZONE_DMA] = PFN_DOWN(arm64_dma_phys_limit);
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, I'm a bit worried this could regress other platforms since you
>> seem
>>>>> to be assuming that DMA address 0 corresponds to the physical start of
>>>>> DRAM. What if that isn't the case?
>>>>
>>>> All of our most recent Set-top-box SoCs map DRAM starting at PA
>>>> 0x4000_0000 FWIW. We have the following memory maps:
>>>
>>> That is below 4GB
>>
>> Right, I was just making sure that there would be no regressions with
>> non-zero base addresses for DRAM, not that there should be, but getting
>> Tested-by tags for such changes is always a good thing IMHO.
>
> I do not have such board nor access to one.
> Perhaps someone on your side can test this patch on the SOC which has DDR starting at 0x4000_0000 for regression?
I suppose I was not clear with the intent of my email. It was not just
comparing the dmesg, but also ran our usual test suite which exercises
Ethernet, USB, NAND, eMMC and did not get any regressions from that.
This was done on all of the boards/systems that were described in my
email, including the two systems with DDR starting at 0x4000_0000.
--
Florian
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4221 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists