linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] RAS: ATL: Expand helpers for adding and removing base and hole

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: <ff9e4658-18c4-4a36-962a-373c15c337a2@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:28:48 -0400
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To: John Allen <john.allen@....com>, bp@...en8.de,
 linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com
Cc: yazen.ghannam@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 avadhut.naik@....com, muralidhara.mk@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] RAS: ATL: Expand helpers for adding and removing base
 and hole

On 3/14/24 12:35, John Allen wrote:
> Data fabric 4.5 denormalization will need to frequently add and remove

More specifically, the non-power-of-2 cases will need this.

> the base and the legacy MMIO hole. Modify existing helpers to improve DF
> 4.5 denormalization flow and add helper to remove the base and hole.

Please write the what/context, why/issue, and how/fix information as
separate paragraphs even if they're just a single sentence each. I think
this helps to find the details more easily.

> 
> Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
> ---
>   drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c     | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>   drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h |  3 +++
>   2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c
> index c1710d233adb..cafdfc57d929 100644
> --- a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/core.c
> @@ -49,15 +49,26 @@ static bool legacy_hole_en(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>   	return FIELD_GET(DF_LEGACY_MMIO_HOLE_EN, reg);
>   }
>   
> -static int add_legacy_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
> +static u64 add_legacy_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
>   {
>   	if (!legacy_hole_en(ctx))
> -		return 0;
> +		return addr;
>   
> -	if (ctx->addr >= df_cfg.dram_hole_base)
> -		ctx->addr += (BIT_ULL(32) - df_cfg.dram_hole_base);
> +	if (addr >= df_cfg.dram_hole_base)
> +		addr += (BIT_ULL(32) - df_cfg.dram_hole_base);
>   
> -	return 0;
> +	return addr;
> +}
> +
> +static u64 remove_legacy_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
> +{
> +	if (!legacy_hole_en(ctx))
> +		return addr;
> +
> +	if (addr >= df_cfg.dram_hole_base)
> +		addr -= (BIT_ULL(32) - df_cfg.dram_hole_base);
> +
> +	return addr;
>   }
>   
>   static u64 get_base_addr(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
> @@ -72,14 +83,16 @@ static u64 get_base_addr(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
>   	return base_addr << DF_DRAM_BASE_LIMIT_LSB;
>   }
>   
> -static int add_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
> +u64 add_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
>   {
> -	ctx->ret_addr += get_base_addr(ctx);
> -
> -	if (add_legacy_hole(ctx))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	addr += get_base_addr(ctx);
> +	return add_legacy_hole(ctx, addr);
> +}
>   
> -	return 0;
> +u64 remove_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr)
> +{
> +	addr -= get_base_addr(ctx);
> +	return remove_legacy_hole(ctx, addr);

This should be the inverse of the "add" operation, I think. So remove
the legacy hole first, then remove the base address.

>   }
>   
>   static bool late_hole_remove(struct addr_ctx *ctx)
> @@ -123,14 +136,14 @@ unsigned long norm_to_sys_addr(u8 socket_id, u8 die_id, u8 coh_st_inst_id, unsig
>   	if (denormalize_address(&ctx))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	if (!late_hole_remove(&ctx) && add_base_and_hole(&ctx))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (!late_hole_remove(&ctx))
> +		ctx.ret_addr = add_base_and_hole(&ctx, ctx.ret_addr);
>   
>   	if (dehash_address(&ctx))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	if (late_hole_remove(&ctx) && add_base_and_hole(&ctx))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (late_hole_remove(&ctx))
> +		ctx.ret_addr = add_base_and_hole(&ctx, ctx.ret_addr);
>   
>   	if (addr_over_limit(&ctx))
>   		return -EINVAL;
> diff --git a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h
> index 1413c8ddc6c5..05b870fcb24e 100644
> --- a/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/ras/amd/atl/internal.h
> @@ -236,6 +236,9 @@ int dehash_address(struct addr_ctx *ctx);
>   unsigned long norm_to_sys_addr(u8 socket_id, u8 die_id, u8 coh_st_inst_id, unsigned long addr);
>   unsigned long convert_umc_mca_addr_to_sys_addr(struct atl_err *err);
>   
> +u64 add_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr);
> +u64 remove_base_and_hole(struct addr_ctx *ctx, u64 addr);

remove_base_and_hole() is only used in denormalize.c, correct? So why
not define it there as static? Other than trying to keep the code
together and symmetrical, I mean.

Thanks,
Yazen