linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1:Check whether indirect table is supported in allocate_vpe_l1

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: <de3c10be-f4d4-75d0-bc70-0791e5217516@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:56:10 +0800
From: Tangnianyao <tangnianyao@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: <tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <guoyang2@...wei.com>,
	<wangwudi@...ilicon.com>, jiangkunkun <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1:Check whether indirect table is
 supported in allocate_vpe_l1_table



On 1/22/2024 22:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:13:09 +0000,
> Tangnianyao <tangnianyao@...wei.com> wrote:
>> On 1/22/2024 17:00, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> [Fixing the LKML address, which has bits of Stephan's address embedded
>>> in it...]
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:06:07 +0000,
>>> Nianyao Tang <tangnianyao@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>> In allocate_vpe_l1_table, when we fail to inherit VPE table from other
>>>> redistributors or ITSs, and we allocate a new vpe table for current common 
>>>> affinity field without checking whether indirect table is supported.
>>>> Let's fix it.
>>> Is there an actual implementation that doesn't support the indirect
>>> property for the VPE table? I know this is allowed for consistency
>>> with the original revision of the architecture, but I never expected
>>> an actual GICv4.1 implementation to be *that* bad.
>>>
>>> If that's the case, I'm a bit puzzled/worried.
>> I met this problem in a developing implementation and find it's allowed by GIC spec.
>> In such environment,  in a common affinity field with only redistributors and without
>> any ITS in it, forcing its_vpe_id_alloc to allocate a large vpeid(like 65000), and there
>> comes an error message "VPE IRQ allocation failure". It originally comes from
>> allocate_vpe_l2_table, reading GICR_VPROPBASER with GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_SIZE=1
>> and GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_INDIRECT=0.
> Really, you should get your HW engineers to fix their GIC
> implementation.  I'm OK with working around this issue for
> completeness, but shipping such an implementation would be a mistake.
>
> [...]
>
>> I have another question here. The max number of pages  for GITS_BASER
>> and GICR_VPROPBASER is different here, while GITS_BASER.Size is
>> bit[7:0] with max 256, and GICR_4_1_VPROPBASER.Size is bit[6:0] with max 128.
>> Kernel usually probe ITS basers first and then probe GICR_4_1_VPROPBASER in
>> a common affinity group. Maybe we need to check this in "inherit_vpe_l1_table_from_its" ?
> This is because GITS_BASER[] is generic (also works for devices and
> collections), while GICR_VPROPBASER is tailored to the VPE table which
> is usually smaller.
>
> I would expect that GICD_TYPER2.VID reports something that cannot
> result in something going wrong (in this case, the L1 allocation
> cannot be more than 128 pages).
>
> Overall, the kernel isn't a validation suite for the HW, and we expect
> it to have some level of sanity. So if none of this is in shipping HW
> but only in some model with crazy parameters, I don't think we should
> go out of our way to support it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>

Hi Marc,
Friendly ping. Do we have plan to fix this problem on kernel, or any other plan ?