| 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: <20241126124112.5o4c3lzem72lkvdw@thinkpad>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:11:12 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
imx@...ts.linux.dev, dlemoal@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, jdmason@...zu.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/6] PCI: endpoint: pci-epf-test: Add doorbell test
support
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 11:00:09AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 09:55:23AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 02:17:04PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 01:26:45PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:40:44AM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > > > Add three registers: doorbell_bar, doorbell_addr, and doorbell_data,
> > > > > along with doorbell_done. Use pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() to allocate a
> > > >
> > > > I don't see 'doorbell_done' defined anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > > doorbell address space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enable the Root Complex (RC) side driver to trigger pci-epc-test's doorbell
> > > > > callback handler by writing doorbell_data to the mapped doorbell_bar's
> > > > > address space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Set doorbell_done in the doorbell callback to indicate completion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Same here.
> > > >
> > > > > To avoid broken compatibility, add new command COMMAND_ENABLE_DOORBELL
> > > >
> > > > 'avoid breaking compatibility between host and endpoint,...'
> > > >
> > > > > and COMMAND_DISABLE_DOORBELL. Host side need send COMMAND_ENABLE_DOORBELL
> > > > > to map one bar's inbound address to MSI space. the command
> > > > > COMMAND_DISABLE_DOORBELL to recovery original inbound address mapping.
> > > > >
> > > > > Host side new driver Host side old driver
> > > > >
> > > > > EP: new driver S F
> > > > > EP: old driver F F
> > > >
> > > > So the last case of old EP and host drivers will fail?
> > >
> > > doorbell test will fail if old EP.
> > >
> >
> > How come there would be doorbell test if it is an old host driver?
>
> I also don't understand this.
>
> The new commands: DOORBELL_ENABLE / DOORBELL_DISABLE
> can only be sent if there is a new host driver.
>
> Sending DOORBELL_ENABLE / DOORBELL_DISABLE will obviously
> return "Invalid command" if the EP driver is old.
>
> If EP driver is new, DOORBELL_ENABLE will only return success if the SoC
> has support for GIC ITS and has configured DTS with msi-parent
> (i.e. if the pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() call was successful).
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > S: If EP side support MSI, 'pcitest -B' return success.
> > > > > If EP side doesn't support MSI, the same to 'F'.
> > > > >
> > > > > F: 'pcitest -B' return failure, other case as usual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tested-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Change from v7 to v8
> > > > > - rename to pci_epf_align_inbound_addr_lo_hi()
> > > > >
> > > > > Change from v6 to v7
> > > > > - use help function pci_epf_align_addr_lo_hi()
> > > > >
> > > > > Change from v5 to v6
> > > > > - rename doorbell_addr to doorbell_offset
> > > > >
> > > > > Chagne from v4 to v5
> > > > > - Add doorbell free at unbind function.
> > > > > - Move msi irq handler to here to more complex user case, such as differece
> > > > > doorbell can use difference handler function.
> > > > > - Add Niklas's code to handle fixed bar's case. If need add your signed-off
> > > > > tag or co-developer tag, please let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > change from v3 to v4
> > > > > - remove revid requirement
> > > > > - Add command COMMAND_ENABLE_DOORBELL and COMMAND_DISABLE_DOORBELL.
> > > > > - call pci_epc_set_bar() to map inbound address to MSI space only at
> > > > > COMMAND_ENABLE_DOORBELL.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 117 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> > > > > index ef6677f34116e..410b2f4bb7ce7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> > > > > @@ -11,12 +11,14 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/dmaengine.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/io.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/msi.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/pci_ids.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/random.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > #include <linux/pci-epc.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/pci-epf.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/pci-ep-msi.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/pci_regs.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > #define IRQ_TYPE_INTX 0
> > > > > @@ -29,6 +31,8 @@
> > > > > #define COMMAND_READ BIT(3)
> > > > > #define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(4)
> > > > > #define COMMAND_COPY BIT(5)
> > > > > +#define COMMAND_ENABLE_DOORBELL BIT(6)
> > > > > +#define COMMAND_DISABLE_DOORBELL BIT(7)
> > > > >
> > > > > #define STATUS_READ_SUCCESS BIT(0)
> > > > > #define STATUS_READ_FAIL BIT(1)
> > > > > @@ -39,6 +43,11 @@
> > > > > #define STATUS_IRQ_RAISED BIT(6)
> > > > > #define STATUS_SRC_ADDR_INVALID BIT(7)
> > > > > #define STATUS_DST_ADDR_INVALID BIT(8)
> > > > > +#define STATUS_DOORBELL_SUCCESS BIT(9)
> > > > > +#define STATUS_DOORBELL_ENABLE_SUCCESS BIT(10)
> > > > > +#define STATUS_DOORBELL_ENABLE_FAIL BIT(11)
> > > > > +#define STATUS_DOORBELL_DISABLE_SUCCESS BIT(12)
> > > > > +#define STATUS_DOORBELL_DISABLE_FAIL BIT(13)
> > > > >
> > > > > #define FLAG_USE_DMA BIT(0)
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -74,6 +83,9 @@ struct pci_epf_test_reg {
> > > > > u32 irq_type;
> > > > > u32 irq_number;
> > > > > u32 flags;
> > > > > + u32 doorbell_bar;
> > > > > + u32 doorbell_offset;
> > > > > + u32 doorbell_data;
> > > > > } __packed;
> > > > >
> > > > > static struct pci_epf_header test_header = {
> > > > > @@ -642,6 +654,63 @@ static void pci_epf_test_raise_irq(struct pci_epf_test *epf_test,
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void pci_epf_enable_doorbell(struct pci_epf_test *epf_test, struct pci_epf_test_reg *reg)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + enum pci_barno bar = reg->doorbell_bar;
> > > > > + struct pci_epf *epf = epf_test->epf;
> > > > > + struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc;
> > > > > + struct pci_epf_bar db_bar;
> > > >
> > > > db_bar = {};
> > > >
> > > > > + struct msi_msg *msg;
> > > > > + size_t offset;
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (bar < BAR_0 || bar == epf_test->test_reg_bar || !epf->db_msg) {
> > > >
> > > > What is the need of BAR check here and below? pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() should've
> > > > allocated proper BAR already.
> > >
> > > Not check it at call pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() because it optional feature.
> >
> > What is 'optional feature' here? allocating doorbell?
> >
> > > It return failure when it actually use it.
> > >
> >
> > So host can call pci_epf_enable_doorbell() without pci_epf_alloc_doorbell()?
>
> This patch calls pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() in pci_epf_test_bind(), so at
> .bind() time.
>
> DOORBELL_ENABLE and DOORBELL_DISABLE are two new commands, so the host driver
> could theoretically send these even if pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() failed.
>
>
> pci_epf_test_cmd_handler() additions looks like this:
>
> + case COMMAND_ENABLE_DOORBELL:
> + pci_epf_enable_doorbell(epf_test, reg);
> + pci_epf_test_raise_irq(epf_test, reg);
> + break;
> + case COMMAND_DISABLE_DOORBELL:
> + pci_epf_disable_doorbell(epf_test, reg);
> + pci_epf_test_raise_irq(epf_test, reg);
> + break;
>
> so they will call pci_epf_enable_doorbell()/pci_epf_disable_doorbell()
> unconditionally, without any check to see if the doorbell was allocated.
>
> We could move the was doorbell allocated check (if (!epf->db_msg)) to
> pci_epf_test_cmd_handler(), but that would make pci_epf_test_cmd_handler()
> more messy, so personally I think it is fine to keep the doorbell allocated
> check in pci_epf_enable_doorbell()/pci_epf_disable_doorbell().
>
>
> I did earlier suggest to Frank to move the pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() call
> to pci_epf_enable_doorbell():
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/Zy02mPTvaPAFFxGi@ryzen/
>
> His reply is here::
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/Zy1CxtKSgRuEPX5A@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/
>
> "it may be too frequent to allocate and free msi resources when call
> pci_epf_enable_doorbell()/pci_epf_disable_doorbell()."
>
> I don't think that is a good argument, as presumably (in the normal case) an
> EPF driver will enable doorbell in the beginning, and then keep it enabled.
>
> However, one point could be that pci-epf-test currently does all allocations
> (the allocations for the backing memory) in .bind(), so in one way it makes
> sense to also allocate the doorbell in .bind().
>
> To play devil's advocate, I guess you could argue that doorbell feature is
> optional, while allocating backing memory for BARs is not, so it makes sense
> that they are not allocated at the same time.
>
I like the idea of calling pci_epf_alloc_doorbell() in
pci_epf_{enable/disable}_doorbell() APIs. And as you said, it doesn't make sense
to call these APIs too frequently.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists