linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Add way to debug pgtable walk

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]

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:08 -0700
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>, 
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, 
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, 
	Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>, 
	"moderated list:ARM SMMU DRIVERS" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, 
	"open list:IOMMU SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Add way to debug pgtable walk

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 4:27 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 08:37:26AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 8:14 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:52:21AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> > > >
> > > > Add an io-pgtable method to walk the pgtable returning the raw PTEs that
> > > > would be traversed for a given iova access.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > >  include/linux/io-pgtable.h     |  4 +++
> > > >  2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> > > > index f7828a7aad41..f47a0e64bb35 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> > > > @@ -693,17 +693,19 @@ static size_t arm_lpae_unmap_pages(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops, unsigned long iov
> > > >                               data->start_level, ptep);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -static phys_addr_t arm_lpae_iova_to_phys(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops,
> > > > -                                      unsigned long iova)
> > > > +static int arm_lpae_pgtable_walk(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops, unsigned long iova,
> > > > +                     int (*cb)(void *cb_data, void *pte, int level),
> > > > +                     void *cb_data)
> > > >  {
> > > >       struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data = io_pgtable_ops_to_data(ops);
> > > >       arm_lpae_iopte pte, *ptep = data->pgd;
> > > >       int lvl = data->start_level;
> > > > +     int ret;
> > > >
> > > >       do {
> > > >               /* Valid IOPTE pointer? */
> > > >               if (!ptep)
> > > > -                     return 0;
> > > > +                     return -EFAULT;
> > >
> > > nit: -ENOENT might be a little better, as we're only checking against a
> > > NULL entry rather than strictly any faulting entry.
> > >
> > > >               /* Grab the IOPTE we're interested in */
> > > >               ptep += ARM_LPAE_LVL_IDX(iova, lvl, data);
> > > > @@ -711,22 +713,52 @@ static phys_addr_t arm_lpae_iova_to_phys(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops,
> > > >
> > > >               /* Valid entry? */
> > > >               if (!pte)
> > > > -                     return 0;
> > > > +                     return -EFAULT;
> > >
> > > Same here (and at the end of the function).
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +             ret = cb(cb_data, &pte, lvl);
> > >
> > > Since pte is on the stack, rather than pointing into the actual pgtable,
> > > I think it would be clearer to pass it by value to the callback.
> >
> > fwiw, I passed it as a void* to avoid the pte size.. although I guess
> > it could be a union of all the possible pte types
>
> Can you just get away with a u64?

yeah, that wfm if you're ok with it

BR,
-R