linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] cxl/hdm: Verify HDM decoder capabilities after parsing

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: <Z8DdafbX6_tbM4DW@aschofie-mobl2.lan>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:47:21 -0800
From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
To: Li Ming <ming.li@...omail.com>
Cc: dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
	vishal.l.verma@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] cxl/hdm: Verify HDM decoder capabilities after
 parsing

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 06:32:51PM +0800, Li Ming wrote:
> devm_cxl_setup_hdm() only checks if decoder_count is 0 after parsing HDM
> decoder capability, But according to the implementation of
> cxl_hdm_decoder_count(), cxlhdm->decoder_count will never be 0.

How does a check against the spec maximums benefit this driver? Is there
a bad path we avoid by checking and quitting at this point.

Might this catch silly decoder counts that the driver previously
ignored?

> 
> Per CXL specification, the values ranges of decoder_count and
> target_count are limited. Adding a checking for the values of them
> in case hardware initialized them with wrong values.

Similar question - is this catching something sooner, rather than
later?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Li Ming <ming.li@...omail.com>
> ---
> base-commit: 22eea823f69ae39dc060c4027e8d1470803d2e49 cxl/next
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c b/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c
> index 70cae4ebf8a4..a98191867c22 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c
> @@ -138,6 +138,34 @@ static bool should_emulate_decoders(struct cxl_endpoint_dvsec_info *info)
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> +static int cxlhdm_decoder_caps_verify(struct cxl_hdm *cxlhdm)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * CXL r3.2 section 8.2.4.20.1
> +	 * CXL devices shall not advertise more than 10 decoders,
> +	 * CXL switches and HBs may advertise up to 32 decoders.
> +	 */
> +	if (is_cxl_endpoint(cxlhdm->port) && cxlhdm->decoder_count > 10)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	else if (cxlhdm->decoder_count > 32)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * CXL r3.2 section 8.2.4.20.1
> +	 * target count is applicable only to CXL upstream port and HB.
> +	 * The number of target ports each decoder supports should be
> +	 * one of the numbers 1, 2, 4 or 8.
> +	 */
> +	if (!is_cxl_endpoint(cxlhdm->port) &&
> +	    cxlhdm->target_count != 1 &&
> +	    cxlhdm->target_count != 2 &&
> +	    cxlhdm->target_count != 4 &&
> +	    cxlhdm->target_count != 8)
> +		return -EINVAL;

Maybe instead of manual bitwise checks try
	(!is_power_of_2(cxlhdm->target_count) || cxlhdm->target_count > 8))


> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * devm_cxl_setup_hdm - map HDM decoder component registers
>   * @port: cxl_port to map
> @@ -182,7 +210,8 @@ struct cxl_hdm *devm_cxl_setup_hdm(struct cxl_port *port,
>  	}
>  
>  	parse_hdm_decoder_caps(cxlhdm);
> -	if (cxlhdm->decoder_count == 0) {
> +	rc = cxlhdm_decoder_caps_verify(cxlhdm);
> +	if (rc) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Spec violation. Caps invalid\n");

Can you move the dev_err to the verify function and include the
specific invalid capability.


--Alison

>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>