| 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: <e22193d6-8d00-4dbc-99be-55a9d6429730@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 12:02:03 +0200
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Prathosh Satish <Prathosh.Satish@...rochip.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 5/8] mfd: zl3073x: Add functions to work with
register mailboxes
On 16. 04. 25 8:27 odp., Ivan Vecera wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 7:32 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * zl3073x_mb_dpll_read - read given DPLL configuration to mailbox
>>> + * @zldev: pointer to device structure
>>> + * @index: DPLL index
>>> + *
>>> + * Reads configuration of given DPLL into DPLL mailbox.
>>> + *
>>> + * Context: Process context. Expects zldev->regmap_lock to be held by caller.
>>> + * Return: 0 on success, <0 on error
>>> + */
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_dpll_read(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index)
>>> +{
>>> + int rc;
>>
>> lockdep_assert_held(zldev->regmap_lock) is stronger than having a
>> comment. When talking about i2c and spi devices, it costs nothing, and
>> catches bugs early.
>
> Makes sense to put the assert here...
>
> Will add.
>
>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Mailbox operations
>>> + */
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_dpll_read(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_dpll_write(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_output_read(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_output_write(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_ref_read(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_ref_write(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_synth_read(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>> +int zl3073x_mb_synth_write(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index);
>>
>> I assume these are the only valid ways to access a mailbox?
>>
>> If so:
>>
>>> +static inline __maybe_unused int
>>> +zl3073x_mb_read_ref_mb_mask(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u16 *value)
>>> +{
>>> + __be16 temp;
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&zldev->mailbox_lock);
>>> + rc = regmap_bulk_read(zldev->regmap, ZL_REG_REF_MB_MASK, &temp,
>>> + sizeof(temp));
>>> + if (rc)
>>> + return rc;
>>> +
>>> + *value = be16_to_cpu(temp);
>>> + return rc;
>>> +}
>>
>> These helpers can be made local to the core. You can then drop the
>> lockdep_assert_held() from here, since the only way to access them is
>> via the API you defined above, and add the checks in those API
>> functions.
>
> This cannot be done this way... the above API just simplifies the
> operation of read and write latch registers from/to mailbox.
>
> Whole operation is described in the commit description.
>
> E.g. read something about DPLL1
> 1. Call zl3073x_mb_dpll_read(..., 1)
> This selects DPLL1 in the DPLL mailbox and performs read operation
> and waits for finish
> 2. Call zl3073x_mb_read_dpll_mode()
> This reads dpll_mode latch register
>
> write:
> 1. Call zl3073x_mb_write_dpll_mode(...)
> This writes mode to dpll_mode latch register
> 2. Call zl3073x_mb_dpll_read(..., 1)
> This writes all info from latch registers to DPLL1
>
> The point is that between step 1 and 2 nobody else cannot touch
> latch_registers or mailbox select register and op semaphore.
>
Anyway, I have a different idea... completely abstract mailboxes from
the caller. The mailbox content can be large and the caller is barely
interested in all registers from the mailbox but this could be resolved
this way:
The proposed API e.g for Ref mailbox:
int zl3073x_mb_ref_read(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index,
struct zl3073x_mb_ref *mb);
int zl3073x_mb_ref_write(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, u8 index,
struct zl3073x_mb_ref *mb);
struct zl3073x_mb_ref {
u32 flags;
u16 freq_base;
u16 freq_mult;
u16 ratio_m;
u16 ratio_n;
u8 config;
u64 phase_offset_compensation;
u8 sync_ctrl;
u32 esync_div;
}
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_FREQ_BASE BIT(0)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_FREQ_MULT BIT(1)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_RATIO_M BIT(2)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_RATIO_N BIT(3)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_CONFIG BIT(4)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_PHASE_OFFSET_COMPENSATION BIT(5)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_SYNC_CTRL BIT(6)
#define ZL3073X_MB_REF_ESYNC_DIV BIT(7)
Then a reader can read this way (read freq and ratio of 3rd ref):
{
struct zl3073x_mb_ref mb;
...
mb.flags = ZL3073X_MB_REF_FREQ_BASE |
ZL3073X_MB_REF_FREQ_MULT |
ZL3073X_MB_REF_RATIO_M |
ZL3073X_MB_REF_RATIO_N;
rc = zl3073x_mb_ref_read(zldev, 3, &mb);
if (rc)
return rc;
/* at this point mb fields requested via flags are filled */
}
A writer similarly (write config of 5th ref):
{
struct zl3073x_mb_ref mb;
...
mb.flags = ZL3073X_MB_REF_CONFIG;
mb.config = FIELD_PREP(SOME_MASK, SOME_VALUE);
rc = zl3073x_mb_ref_write(zldev, 5, &mb);
...
/* config of 5th ref was commited */
}
The advantages:
* no explicit locking required from the callers
* locking is done inside mailbox API
* each mailbox type can have different mutex so multiple calls for
different mailbox types (e.g ref & output) can be done in parallel
WDYT about this approach?
Thanks,
Ivan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists