| 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: <8593f871-6737-7f85-5035-b1b2d5d312e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:08:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, johannes@...solutions.net,
ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, loic.poulain@...aro.org,
m.chetan.kumar@...el.com, chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com,
linuxwwan@...el.com, chiranjeevi.rapolu@...ux.intel.com,
haijun.liu@...iatek.com, amir.hanania@...el.com,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
dinesh.sharma@...el.com, eliot.lee@...el.com,
moises.veleta@...el.com, pierre-louis.bossart@...el.com,
muralidharan.sethuraman@...el.com, Soumya.Prakash.Mishra@...el.com,
sreehari.kancharla@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/13] net: wwan: t7xx: Data path HW layer
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Ricardo Martinez wrote:
> From: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@...iatek.com>
>
> Data Path Modem AP Interface (DPMAIF) HW layer provides HW abstraction
> for the upper layer (DPMAIF HIF). It implements functions to do the HW
> configuration, TX/RX control and interrupt handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@...iatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chandrashekar Devegowda <chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com>
> Co-developed-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> +static int t7xx_dpmaif_init_intr(struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info)
> +{
> + struct dpmaif_isr_en_mask *isr_en_msk = &hw_info->isr_en_mask;
dpmaif_isr_en_mask is not defined until patch 08.
> +/* The para->intr_cnt counter is set to zero before this function is called.
> + * It does not check for overflow as there is no risk of overflowing intr_types or intr_queues.
> + */
> +static void t7xx_dpmaif_hw_check_rx_intr(struct dpmaif_ctrl *dpmaif_ctrl,
> + unsigned int *pl2_rxisar0,
> + struct dpmaif_hw_intr_st_para *para, int qno)
> +{
> + struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info = &dpmaif_ctrl->hif_hw_info;
> + unsigned int l2_rxisar0 = *pl2_rxisar0;
> + unsigned int value;
> +
> + if (qno == DPF_RX_QNO_DFT) {
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_SKB_LEN_ERR;
> + if (value)
In this function, value variable doesn't seem that useful compared with
checking the condition directly on if line. And the value is never used
after that.
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_SKB_LEN_ERR, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_BATCNT_LEN_ERR;
> + if (value) {
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_BATCNT_LEN_ERR, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> + hw_info->isr_en_mask.ap_dl_l2intr_en_msk &= ~DP_DL_INT_BATCNT_LEN_ERR;
> + iowrite32(DP_DL_INT_BATCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_AO_UL_APDL_L2TIMSR0);
> + }
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_PITCNT_LEN_ERR;
> + if (value) {
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_PITCNT_LEN_ERR, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> + hw_info->isr_en_mask.ap_dl_l2intr_en_msk &= ~DP_DL_INT_PITCNT_LEN_ERR;
> + iowrite32(DP_DL_INT_PITCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_AO_UL_APDL_L2TIMSR0);
> + }
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_PKT_EMPTY_MSK;
> + if (value)
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_PKT_EMPTY_SET, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_FRG_EMPTY_MSK;
> + if (value)
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_FRG_EMPTY_SET, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_MTU_ERR_MSK;
> + if (value)
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_MTU_ERR, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_FRG_LENERR_MSK;
> + if (value)
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_FRGCNT_LEN_ERR, DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_Q0_PITCNT_LEN_ERR;
> + if (value) {
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_Q0_PITCNT_LEN_ERR, BIT(qno));
> + t7xx_dpmaif_dlq_mask_rx_pitcnt_len_err_intr(hw_info, qno);
> + }
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_HPC_ENT_TYPE_ERR;
> + if (value)
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_HPC_ENT_TYPE_ERR,
> + DPF_RX_QNO_DFT);
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_Q0_DONE;
> + if (value) {
> + /* Mask RX done interrupt immediately after it occurs */
> + if (!t7xx_mask_dlq_intr(dpmaif_ctrl, qno)) {
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_Q0_DONE, BIT(qno));
> + } else {
> + /* Unable to clear the interrupt, try again on the next one
> + * device entered low power mode or suffer exception
> + */
It's not obvious what "on the next one" means. I assume you're
also missing period from end of the first line.
> + *pl2_rxisar0 = l2_rxisar0 & ~DP_DL_INT_Q0_DONE;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_Q1_PITCNT_LEN_ERR;
> + if (value) {
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_Q1_PITCNT_LEN_ERR, BIT(qno));
> + t7xx_dpmaif_dlq_mask_rx_pitcnt_len_err_intr(hw_info, qno);
> + }
> +
> + value = l2_rxisar0 & DP_DL_INT_Q1_DONE;
> + if (value) {
> + if (!t7xx_mask_dlq_intr(dpmaif_ctrl, qno))
> + t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para(para, DPF_INTR_DL_Q1_DONE, BIT(qno));
> + else
> + *pl2_rxisar0 = l2_rxisar0 & ~DP_DL_INT_Q1_DONE;
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +static void t7xx_dpmaif_dl_dlq_pit_en(struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info, unsigned char q_num,
> + bool enable)
> +{
> + unsigned int value;
> +
> + value = ioread32(hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_DL_DLQPIT_INIT_CON3);
> +
> + if (enable)
> + value |= DPMAIF_DLQPIT_EN_MSK;
> + else
> + value &= ~DPMAIF_DLQPIT_EN_MSK;
> +
> + iowrite32(value, hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_DL_DLQPIT_INIT_CON3);
> +}
Only called with enabled = true
> +static int t7xx_dpmaif_config_dlq_hw(struct dpmaif_ctrl *dpmaif_ctrl)
> +{
> + struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info = &dpmaif_ctrl->hif_hw_info;
> + struct dpmaif_dl_hwq *dl_hw;
Only defined in 08. I might have not noticed all missing defs
so please compile test yourself to find the rest if any.
In general, it would be useful to use, e.g., a shell for loop to compile
test every change incrementally in the patchset before sending them out.
Another thing is that the values inside struct dpmaif_dl_hwq are
just set from constants and never changed anywhere. Why not use
the constants directly?
> +static void t7xx_dpmaif_ul_all_q_en(struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info, bool enable)
> +{
> + u32 ul_arb_en = ioread32(hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_AO_UL_CHNL_ARB0);
> +
> + if (enable)
> + ul_arb_en |= DPMAIF_UL_ALL_QUE_ARB_EN;
> + else
> + ul_arb_en &= ~DPMAIF_UL_ALL_QUE_ARB_EN;
> +
> + iowrite32(ul_arb_en, hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_AO_UL_CHNL_ARB0);
> +}
> +
> +static bool t7xx_dpmaif_ul_idle_check(struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info)
> +{
> + u32 dpmaif_ul_is_busy = ioread32(hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_UL_CHK_BUSY);
> +
> + return !(dpmaif_ul_is_busy & DPMAIF_UL_IDLE_STS);
> +}
> +
> + /* DPMAIF UL Part HW setting */
While not extremely useful to begin with, isn't this comment too late as
it is after two UL related functions?
> +unsigned int t7xx_dpmaif_dl_get_frg_rd_idx(struct dpmaif_hw_info *hw_info, unsigned char q_num)
> +{
> + u32 value;
> +
> + value = ioread32(hw_info->pcie_base + DPMAIF_AO_DL_FRGBAT_WRIDX);
> + return value & DPMAIF_DL_FRG_WRIDX_MSK;
> +}
Function name has rd_idx but defines used are WRIDX. Is it intentional?
> +enum dpmaif_hw_intr_type {
> + DPF_INTR_INVALID_MIN,
> + DPF_INTR_UL_DONE,
> + DPF_INTR_UL_DRB_EMPTY,
> + DPF_INTR_UL_MD_NOTREADY,
> + DPF_INTR_UL_MD_PWR_NOTREADY,
> + DPF_INTR_UL_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_DONE,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_SKB_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_BATCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_PITCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_PKT_EMPTY_SET,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_FRG_EMPTY_SET,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_MTU_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_FRGCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_Q0_PITCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_Q1_PITCNT_LEN_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_HPC_ENT_TYPE_ERR,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_Q0_DONE,
> + DPF_INTR_DL_Q1_DONE,
> + DPF_INTR_INVALID_MAX
> +};
> +
> +#define DPF_RX_QNO0 0
> +#define DPF_RX_QNO1 1
> +#define DPF_RX_QNO_DFT DPF_RX_QNO0
> +
> +struct dpmaif_hw_intr_st_para {
> + unsigned int intr_cnt;
> + enum dpmaif_hw_intr_type intr_types[DPF_INTR_INVALID_MAX - 1];
> + unsigned int intr_queues[DPF_INTR_INVALID_MAX - 1];
Off-by-one errors?
In addition, I think there's some other problem related to these as
there are 20 values in enum (of which two are named "INVALID") but
t7xx_dpmaif_set_intr_para seems to be called only with 17 of them
(DPF_INTR_DL_DONE not among the calls). This implies intr_cnt will
likely be too small to cover the last entry when it is being used
in 08/13 for a for loop termination condition.
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists