| 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: <ZuR6yvqpCiV4Cjqf@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 10:47:54 -0700
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc: Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Hugues Bruant <hugues.bruant@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [NOT A REGRESSION] firmware: framebuffer-coreboot: duplicate
device name "simple-framebuffer.0"
Hi Javier,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:33:58PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> That's a very good point. I'm actually not familiar with Coreboot and I
> used an educated guess (in the case of DT for example, that's the main
> source of truth and I didn't know if a Core table was in a similar vein).
>
> Maybe something like the following (untested) patch then?
Julius is more familiar with the Coreboot + payload ecosystem than me,
but his explanations make sense to me, as does this patch.
> From de1c32017006f4671d91b695f4d6b4e99c073ab2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 18:31:55 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] firmware: coreboot: Don't register a pdev if screen_info data
> is available
>
> On Coreboot platforms, a system framebuffer may be provided to the Linux
> kernel by filling a LB_TAG_FRAMEBUFFER entry in the Coreboot table. But
> a Coreboot payload (e.g: SeaBIOS) could also provide this information to
> the Linux kernel.
>
> If that the case, early arch x86 boot code will fill the global struct
> screen_info data and that data used by the Generic System Framebuffers
> (sysfb) framework to add a platform device with platform data about the
> system framebuffer.
Normally, these sorts of "early" and "later" ordering descriptions would
set alarm bells when talking about independent drivers. But I suppose
the "early arch" code has better ordering guaranteeds than drivers, so
this should be fine.
> But later then the framebuffer_coreboot driver will try to do the same
> framebuffer (using the information from the Coreboot table), which will
> lead to an error due a simple-framebuffer.0 device already registered:
>
> sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/bus/platform/devices/simple-framebuffer.0'
> ...
> coreboot: could not register framebuffer
> framebuffer coreboot8: probe with driver framebuffer failed with error -17
>
> To prevent the issue, make the framebuffer_core driver to not register a
> platform device if the global struct screen_info data has been filled.
>
> Reported-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZuCG-DggNThuF4pj@b20ea791c01f/T/#ma7fb65acbc1a56042258adac910992bb225a20d2
> Suggested-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c b/drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c
> index daadd71d8ddd..4e50da17cd7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/platform_data/simplefb.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/screen_info.h>
>
> #include "coreboot_table.h"
>
> @@ -27,6 +28,7 @@ static int framebuffer_probe(struct coreboot_device *dev)
> int i;
> u32 length;
> struct lb_framebuffer *fb = &dev->framebuffer;
> + struct screen_info *si = &screen_info;
> struct platform_device *pdev;
> struct resource res;
> struct simplefb_platform_data pdata = {
> @@ -36,6 +38,20 @@ static int framebuffer_probe(struct coreboot_device *dev)
> .format = NULL,
> };
>
> + /*
> + * If the global screen_info data has been filled, the Generic
> + * System Framebuffers (sysfb) will already register a platform
Did you mean 'platform_device'?
> + * and pass the screen_info as platform_data to a driver that
> + * could scan-out using the system provided framebuffer.
> + *
> + * On Coreboot systems, the advertise LB_TAG_FRAMEBUFFER entry
s/advertise/advertised/ ?
> + * in the Coreboot table should only be used if the payload did
> + * not set video mode info and passed it to the Linux kernel.
s/passed/pass/
> + */
> + if (si->orig_video_isVGA == VIDEO_TYPE_VLFB ||
> + si->orig_video_isVGA == VIDEO_TYPE_EFI)
This line is using spaces for indentation. It should use a tab, and then
spaces for alignment. But presumably this will change based on Thomas's
suggestions anyway.
> + return -EINVAL;
Is EINVAL right? IIUC, that will print a noisier error to the logs. I
believe the "expected" sorts of return codes are ENODEV or ENXIO. (See
call_driver_probe().) ENODEV seems like a fine choice, similar to
several of the other return codes already used here.
Anyway, this seems along the right track. Thanks for tackling, and feel
free to carry a:
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> +
> if (!fb->physical_address)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Javier Martinez Canillas
> Core Platforms
> Red Hat
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists