netdev - Re: [PATCH] Revert "mailbox/pcc: support mailbox management of the shared buffer"

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: <0f48a2b3-50c4-4f67-a8f6-853ad545bb00@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 01:25:42 -0400
From: Adam Young <admiyo@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
 Adam Young <admiyo@...amperecomputing.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mailbox/pcc: support mailbox management of the
 shared buffer"


On 9/29/25 20:19, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 12:11 PM Adam Young
> <admiyo@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com> wrote:
>> I posted a patch that addresses a few of these issues.  Here is a top
>> level description of the isse
>>
>>
>> The correct way to use the mailbox API would be to allocate a buffer for
>> the message,write the message to that buffer, and pass it in to
>> mbox_send_message.  The abstraction is designed to then provide
>> sequential access to the shared resource in order to send the messages
>> in order.  The existing PCC Mailbox implementation violated this
>> abstraction.  It requires each individual driver re-implement all of the
>> sequential ordering to access the shared buffer.
>>
>> Why? Because they are all type 2 drivers, and the shared buffer is
>> 64bits in length:  32bits for signature, 16 bits for command, 16 bits
>> for status.  It would be execessive to kmalloc a buffer of this size.
>>
>> This shows the shortcoming of the mailbox API.  The mailbox API assumes
>> that there is a large enough buffer passed in to only provide a void *
>> pointer to the message.  Since the value is small enough to fit into a
>> single register, it the mailbox abstraction could provide an
>> implementation that stored a union of a void * and word.
>>
> Mailbox api does not make assumptions about the format of message
> hence it simply asks for void*.
> Probably I don't understand your requirement, but why can't you pass the pointer
> to the 'word' you want to use otherwise?
>
> -jassi
The mbox_send_message call will then take the pointer value that you 
give it and put it in a ring buffer.  The function then returns, and the 
value may be popped off the stack before the message is actually sent.  
In practice we don't see this because much of the code that calls it is 
blocking code, so the value stays on the stack until it is read.  Or, in 
the case of the PCC mailbox, the value is never read or used.  But, as 
the API is designed, the memory passed into to the function should 
expect to live longer than the function call, and should not be 
allocated on the stack.