| 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: <Z1_5TjlvyZl5ynGz@bogus>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:56:30 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Kai-Heng Feng <kaihengf@...dia.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Carol Soto <csoto@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Allow unused SGIs for drivers/modules
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:25:29AM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On 2024/8/13 6:33 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 09:58:34AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 04:39:25 +0100,
> > > Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The commit 897e9e60c016 ("firmware: arm_ffa: Initial support for scheduler
> > > > receiver interrupt") adds support for SGI interrupts in the FFA driver.
> > > > However, the validation for SGIs in the GICv3 is too strict, causing the
> > > > driver probe to fail.
> > >
> > > It probably is a good thing that I wasn't on Cc for this patch,
> > > because I would have immediately NAK'd it. Sudeep, please consider
> > > this a retrospective NAK!
> > >
> >
> > Sure, I am happy to work on any suggestions to replace it with better/cleaner
> > solution.
> >
> > > >
> > > > This patch relaxes the SGI validation check, allowing callers to use SGIs
> > > > if the requested SGI number is greater than or equal to MAX_IPI, which
> > > > fixes the TFA driver probe failure.
> > > >
> > > > This issue is observed on NVIDIA server platform with FFA-v1.1.
> > > > [ 7.918099] PTP clock support registered
> > > > [ 7.922110] EDAC MC: Ver: 3.0.0
> > > > [ 7.945063] ARM FF-A: Driver version 1.1
> > > > [ 7.949068] ARM FF-A: Firmware version 1.1 found
> > > > [ 7.977832] GICv3: [Firmware Bug]: Illegal GSI8 translation request
> > > > [ 7.984237] ARM FF-A: Failed to create IRQ mapping!
> > > > [ 7.989220] ARM FF-A: Notification setup failed -61, not enabled
> > > > [ 8.000198] ARM FF-A: Failed to register driver sched callback -95
> > > > [ 8.011322] scmi_core: SCMI protocol bus registered
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_gicv3.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > > > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 17 -----------------
> > > > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 2 +-
> > > > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_gicv3.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_gicv3.h
> > > > index 9e96f024b2f19..ecf81df2915c7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_gicv3.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_gicv3.h
> > > > @@ -188,5 +188,22 @@ static inline bool gic_has_relaxed_pmr_sync(void)
> > > > return cpus_have_cap(ARM64_HAS_GIC_PRIO_RELAXED_SYNC);
> > > > }
> > > > +enum ipi_msg_type {
> > > > + IPI_RESCHEDULE,
> > > > + IPI_CALL_FUNC,
> > > > + IPI_CPU_STOP,
> > > > + IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP,
> > > > + IPI_TIMER,
> > > > + IPI_IRQ_WORK,
> > > > + NR_IPI,
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Any enum >= NR_IPI and < MAX_IPI is special and not tracable
> > > > + * with trace_ipi_*
> > > > + */
> > > > + IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE = NR_IPI,
> > > > + IPI_KGDB_ROUNDUP,
> > > > + MAX_IPI
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> > > > #endif /* __ASM_ARCH_GICV3_H */
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > > index 5e18fbcee9a20..373cd815d9a43 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > > @@ -64,23 +64,6 @@ struct secondary_data secondary_data;
> > > > /* Number of CPUs which aren't online, but looping in kernel text. */
> > > > static int cpus_stuck_in_kernel;
> > > > -enum ipi_msg_type {
> > > > - IPI_RESCHEDULE,
> > > > - IPI_CALL_FUNC,
> > > > - IPI_CPU_STOP,
> > > > - IPI_CPU_CRASH_STOP,
> > > > - IPI_TIMER,
> > > > - IPI_IRQ_WORK,
> > > > - NR_IPI,
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * Any enum >= NR_IPI and < MAX_IPI is special and not tracable
> > > > - * with trace_ipi_*
> > > > - */
> > > > - IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE = NR_IPI,
> > > > - IPI_KGDB_ROUNDUP,
> > > > - MAX_IPI
> > > > -};
> > > > -
> > > > static int ipi_irq_base __ro_after_init;
> > > > static int nr_ipi __ro_after_init = NR_IPI;
> > > > static struct irq_desc *ipi_desc[MAX_IPI] __ro_after_init;
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > > > index c19083bfb9432..0d2038d8cd311 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > > > @@ -1655,7 +1655,7 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_translate(struct irq_domain *d,
> > > > if(fwspec->param_count != 2)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > - if (fwspec->param[0] < 16) {
> > > > + if (fwspec->param[0] < MAX_IPI) {
> > > > pr_err(FW_BUG "Illegal GSI%d translation request\n",
> > > > fwspec->param[0]);
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > No. This is the wrong approach, and leads to inconsistent behaviour if
> > > we ever change this MAX_IPI value. It also breaks 32 bit builds, and
> > > makes things completely inconsistent between ACPI and DT.
> > >
> > > I don't know how the FFA code was tested, because I cannot see how it
> > > can work.
> > >
> > > *IF* we are going to allow random SGIs being requested by random
> > > drivers, we need to be able to do it properly. Not as a side hack like
> > > this.
> >
> > I am open for any ideas as FF-A spec authors/architects decided to allow
> > secure world to donate one of its SGI to the normal world for FF-A
> > notifications.
>
> Is there any progression on this issue? Do you think it's reasonable to
> revert commit 897e9e60c016 as a temporary measure?
>
I haven't started on this yet, but I plan to do that in a week or so.
Revert may not be trivial at this point. We can disable it until it is
fixed properly instead of all possible conflicts with reverts.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists