ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchánek]

Hello,

building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.

The structure is defined as 

struct ibmvtpm_crq {
        u8 valid;
        u8 msg;
        __be16 len;
        __be32 data;
        __be64 reserved;
} __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));

initialized as

        struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
        u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
...
        crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
        crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;

and submitted with

        rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
                              cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));

which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.

This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
meaning in the future.

However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as

	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
        __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
...
        crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
        crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
        crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
        crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);

and submitted with

	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
                              be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
meaning it is swapped twice.


Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as BE
subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra whole
word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
correct)?

Thanks

Michal

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:

> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
> meaning in the future.

Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
memset is overkill...

> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
> 
> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
> ...
>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> 
> and submitted with
> 
> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> meaning it is swapped twice.

No idea, Nayna may know.

My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...

Jason

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:

> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
> meaning in the future.

Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
memset is overkill...

> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
> 
> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
> ...
>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> 
> and submitted with
> 
> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> meaning it is swapped twice.

No idea, Nayna may know.

My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...

Jason

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchanek]

On 26 January 2017 at 23:05, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>
>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>> meaning in the future.
>
> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?

And len and data as well..

> memset is overkill...

Does not look so.

Michal

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Ashley Lai]

Adding Vicky from IBM.


On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>
>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>> meaning in the future.
> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
> memset is overkill...
>
>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>
>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>          __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>> ...
>>          crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>          crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>          crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>          crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>
>> and submitted with
>>
>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>                                be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>> meaning it is swapped twice.
> No idea, Nayna may know.
>
> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>
> Jason

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Tyrel Datwyler]

On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
> 
> The structure is defined as 
> 
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>         u8 valid;
>         u8 msg;
>         __be16 len;
>         __be32 data;
>         __be64 reserved;
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
> 
> initialized as
> 
>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
> ...
>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
> 
> and submitted with
> 
>         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));

These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
RTAS interface which requires data in BE.

> 
> which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
> 
> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
> meaning in the future.
> 
> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
> 
> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
> ...
>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> 
> and submitted with
> 
> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> meaning it is swapped twice.
> 
> 
> Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as BE
> subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra whole
> word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
> correct)?

The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE terms.
However, when we break the crq apart into high and low words they need
to be in cpu endian as mentioned above.

-Tyrel

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Michal
> 

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
> > of
> > struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
> > 
> > The structure is defined as 
> > 
> > struct ibmvtpm_crq {
> >         u8 valid;
> >         u8 msg;
> >         __be16 len;
> >         __be32 data;
> >         __be64 reserved;
> > } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
> > 
> > initialized as
> > 
> >         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> >         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
> > ...
> >         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> >         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
> > 
> > and submitted with
> > 
> >         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
> >                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
> 
> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.

Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
an endianness.

The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.

So we have two things at play here:

  - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
  - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
registers MSB first.

So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.

That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
> > 
> > which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
> > 
> > This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
> > quiet
> > gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get
> > some
> > meaning in the future.
> > 
> > However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
> > 
> > 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> >         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
> > ...
> >         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> >         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
> >         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
> >         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> > 
> > and submitted with
> > 
> > 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
> >                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> > meaning it is swapped twice.
> > 
> > 
> > Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as
> > BE
> > subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra
> > whole
> > word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
> > correct)?
> 
> The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE
> terms.
> However, when we break the crq apart into high and low words they
> need
> to be in cpu endian as mentioned above.
> 
> -Tyrel
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Michal
> > 

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchanek]

On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>> > of
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>> >
>> > The structure is defined as
>> >
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>> >         u8 valid;
>> >         u8 msg;
>> >         __be16 len;
>> >         __be32 data;
>> >         __be64 reserved;
>> > } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>> >
>> > initialized as
>> >
>> >         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>> >         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>> > ...
>> >         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>> >         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>> >
>> > and submitted with
>> >
>> >         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>> >                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>
>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>
> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
> an endianness.
>
> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>
> So we have two things at play here:
>
>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
> registers MSB first.
>
> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>
> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).

If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
broken.

Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
start with that byte no matter the host endian.
crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
separately.

On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
swapped as part of the integer.

That is,
#define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.

And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.

>> >
>> > which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
>> >
>> > This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
>> > quiet
>> > gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get
>> > some
>> > meaning in the future.
>> >
>> > However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>> >
>> >     struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>> >         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>> > ...
>> >         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>> >         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>> >         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>> >         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>> >
>> > and submitted with
>> >
>> >     rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>> >                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>> > meaning it is swapped twice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as
>> > BE
>> > subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra
>> > whole
>> > word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
>> > correct)?
>>
>> The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE
>> terms.

Which exact PAPR? Where can I get it?
The PAPR document I found does not say anything about vtpm.

Thanks

Michal

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchanek]

On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>> > of
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>> >
>> > The structure is defined as
>> >
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>> >         u8 valid;
>> >         u8 msg;
>> >         __be16 len;
>> >         __be32 data;
>> >         __be64 reserved;
>> > } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>> >
>> > initialized as
>> >
>> >         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>> >         u64 *buf =3D (u64 *) &crq;
>> > ...
>> >         crq.valid =3D (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>> >         crq.msg =3D (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>> >
>> > and submitted with
>> >
>> >         rc =3D ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>> >                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>
>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>
> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
> an endianness.
>
> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>
> So we have two things at play here:
>
>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
> registers MSB first.
>
> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>
> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).

If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
broken.

Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
start with that byte no matter the host endian.
crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
separately.

On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
swapped as part of the integer.

That is,
#define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.

And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.

>> >
>> > which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
>> >
>> > This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
>> > quiet
>> > gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get
>> > some
>> > meaning in the future.
>> >
>> > However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>> >
>> >     struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>> >         __be64 *word =3D (__be64 *)&crq;
>> > ...
>> >         crq.valid =3D (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>> >         crq.msg =3D (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>> >         crq.len =3D cpu_to_be16(count);
>> >         crq.data =3D cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>> >
>> > and submitted with
>> >
>> >     rc =3D ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>> >                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>> > meaning it is swapped twice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as
>> > BE
>> > subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra
>> > whole
>> > word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
>> > correct)?
>>
>> The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE
>> terms.

Which exact PAPR? Where can I get it?
The PAPR document I found does not say anything about vtpm.

Thanks

Michal

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchanek]

On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>> > of
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>> >
>> > The structure is defined as
>> >
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>> >         u8 valid;
>> >         u8 msg;
>> >         __be16 len;
>> >         __be32 data;
>> >         __be64 reserved;
>> > } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>> >
>> > initialized as
>> >
>> >         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>> >         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>> > ...
>> >         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>> >         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>> >
>> > and submitted with
>> >
>> >         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>> >                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>
>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>
> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
> an endianness.
>
> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>
> So we have two things at play here:
>
>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
> registers MSB first.
>
> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>
> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).

If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
broken.

Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
start with that byte no matter the host endian.
crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
separately.

On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
swapped as part of the integer.

That is,
#define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.

And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.

>> >
>> > which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
>> >
>> > This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
>> > quiet
>> > gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get
>> > some
>> > meaning in the future.
>> >
>> > However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>> >
>> >     struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>> >         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>> > ...
>> >         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>> >         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>> >         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>> >         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>> >
>> > and submitted with
>> >
>> >     rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>> >                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>> > meaning it is swapped twice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as
>> > BE
>> > subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra
>> > whole
>> > word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
>> > correct)?
>>
>> The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE
>> terms.

Which exact PAPR? Where can I get it?
The PAPR document I found does not say anything about vtpm.

Thanks

Michal

RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]

From: Michal Suchánek
> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
> 
> The structure is defined as
> 
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>         u8 valid;
>         u8 msg;
>         __be16 len;
>         __be32 data;
>         __be64 reserved;
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
> 
> initialized as
> 
>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
...

Hrummfff....
What is that attribute for, seems pretty confusing and pointless to me.

I also suspect that if you want to access it as two 64bit words it
ought to be a union.

	David

RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]

From: Michal Such=E1nek
> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>=20
> The structure is defined as
>=20
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>         u8 valid;
>         u8 msg;
>         __be16 len;
>         __be32 data;
>         __be64 reserved;
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>=20
> initialized as
>=20
>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>         u64 *buf =3D (u64 *) &crq;
...

Hrummfff....
What is that attribute for, seems pretty confusing and pointless to me.

I also suspect that if you want to access it as two 64bit words it
ought to be a union.

	David

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Tyrel Datwyler]

On 01/26/2017 05:50 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>> of
>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>>>
>>> The structure is defined as 
>>>
>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>         u8 valid;
>>>         u8 msg;
>>>         __be16 len;
>>>         __be32 data;
>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>>>
>>> initialized as
>>>
>>>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>>> ...
>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>>>
>>> and submitted with
>>>
>>>         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>>>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>
>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
> 
> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
> an endianness.

I wasn't suggesting that they do. However, I still believe my point is
valid that the arguments need to be loaded into the registers according
to the endianness of the cpu. We had several bugs during LE porting
where assumptions were made that parameters should be loaded BE
regardless of cpu endian. For example:

commit 3df76a9dcc74d5f012b94ea01ed6e7aaf8362c5a
Author: Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed Jan 21 13:32:00 2015 +1100

    powerpc/pseries: Fix endian problems with LE migration

    RTAS events require arguments be passed in big endian while
    hypercalls have their arguments passed in registers and the values
    should therefore be in CPU endian.

> 
> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.

This is only the case if the cpu is BE. If the cpu is LE, regardless of
the fact that our in memory structure is laid out BE, when we break it
into 2 words each of those words needs to be loaded LE.

-Tyrel

> 
> So we have two things at play here:
> 
>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
> registers MSB first.
> 
> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
> 
> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
>>>
>>> which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
>>>
>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
>>> quiet
>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get
>>> some
>>> meaning in the future.
>>>
>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>>
>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>>> ...
>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>>
>>> and submitted with
>>>
>>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as
>>> BE
>>> subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra
>>> whole
>>> word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
>>> correct)?
>>
>> The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE
>> terms.
>> However, when we break the crq apart into high and low words they
>> need
>> to be in cpu endian as mentioned above.
>>
>> -Tyrel
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Michal
>>>
> 

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> > The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> > registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> > registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
> 
> This is only the case if the cpu is BE. If the cpu is LE, regardless of
> the fact that our in memory structure is laid out BE, when we break it
> into 2 words each of those words needs to be loaded LE.

That doesn't make sense and doesn't match the code... The structure
needs to always have the same in-register layout regardless of the
endianness of the CPU, especially since the underlying hypervisor
will most likely be BE :-)

Thta's why the code does a be64_to_cpu() when loading it, this in
effect performs a "BE" load, which on a BE CPU is just a normal load
and on LE is a swap to compensate for the CPU loading it the "wrong way
around".

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> > The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> > registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> > registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
> 
> This is only the case if the cpu is BE. If the cpu is LE, regardless of
> the fact that our in memory structure is laid out BE, when we break it
> into 2 words each of those words needs to be loaded LE.

That doesn't make sense and doesn't match the code... The structure
needs to always have the same in-register layout regardless of the
endianness of the CPU, especially since the underlying hypervisor
will most likely be BE :-)

Thta's why the code does a be64_to_cpu() when loading it, this in
effect performs a "BE" load, which on a BE CPU is just a normal load
and on LE is a swap to compensate for the CPU loading it the "wrong way
around".

Cheers,
Ben.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Tyrel Datwyler]

On 01/27/2017 11:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>
>> This is only the case if the cpu is BE. If the cpu is LE, regardless of
>> the fact that our in memory structure is laid out BE, when we break it
>> into 2 words each of those words needs to be loaded LE.
> 
> That doesn't make sense and doesn't match the code... The structure
> needs to always have the same in-register layout regardless of the
> endianness of the CPU, especially since the underlying hypervisor
> will most likely be BE :-)
> 
> Thta's why the code does a be64_to_cpu() when loading it, this in
> effect performs a "BE" load, which on a BE CPU is just a normal load
> and on LE is a swap to compensate for the CPU loading it the "wrong way
> around".

Its possible being the end of the week I'm just a little dense, but
wouldn't be64_to_cpu() imply that we are byte-swapping something that is
already, or supposedly already, in BE format to cpu endianness? Which on
a BE cpu I would expect a no-op, and on a LE cpu the 64bit word to have
been swapped from BE --> LE?

In my eyes the code does seem to support what I've argued. The same
thing is done in the scsi VIO drivers. The CRQ structure is laid out and
annotated BE. We use cpu_to_be() calls to load any non 8bit field.
Finally, each word is swapped to cpu endian when we hand it off for the
hcall.

from ibmvfc_send_event():

        __be64 *crq_as_u64 = (__be64 *) &evt->crq;

	<..snip..>

        if ((rc = ibmvfc_send_crq(vhost, be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[0]),
                                  be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[1])))) {

Again, maybe I'm missing something.

-Tyrel

> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.
> 

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Tyrel Datwyler]

On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>>> of
>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>>>>
>>>> The structure is defined as
>>>>
>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>>         u8 valid;
>>>>         u8 msg;
>>>>         __be16 len;
>>>>         __be32 data;
>>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>>>>
>>>> initialized as
>>>>
>>>>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>>>> ...
>>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>>>>
>>>> and submitted with
>>>>
>>>>         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>>>>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>>
>>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>>
>> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
>> an endianness.
>>
>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>
>> So we have two things at play here:
>>
>>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
>> registers MSB first.
>>
>> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
>> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>>
>> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
>> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
> 
> If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
> broken.
> 
> Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
> start with that byte no matter the host endian.
> crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
> separately.
> 
> On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
> swapped as part of the integer.
> 
> That is,
> #define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
> CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
> on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.
> 
> And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
> used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.

Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Word0 | Valid |	Type  |	    Length    |              Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Word1 |				Reserved
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following definition looks to match:

struct ibmvtpm_crq {
        u8 valid;
        u8 msg;
        __be16 len;
        __be32 data;
        __be64 reserved;
} __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));

> 
>>>>
>>>> which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
>>>>
>>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
>>>> quiet
>>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get
>>>> some
>>>> meaning in the future.
>>>>
>>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>>>
>>>>     struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>>>> ...
>>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>>>
>>>> and submitted with
>>>>
>>>>     rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as
>>>> BE
>>>> subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra
>>>> whole
>>>> word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
>>>> correct)?
>>>
>>> The interface is defined in PAPR. The crq format is defined in BE
>>> terms.
> 
> Which exact PAPR? Where can I get it?
> The PAPR document I found does not say anything about vtpm. 

Unfortunately, vtpm doesn't appear to be covered in the publicly
available LoPAPR.

-Tyrel

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Michal
> 

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[msuchanek]

Hello,

On 2017-01-27 21:32, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 01/27/2017 11:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>> 
>>> This is only the case if the cpu is BE. If the cpu is LE, regardless 
>>> of
>>> the fact that our in memory structure is laid out BE, when we break 
>>> it
>>> into 2 words each of those words needs to be loaded LE.
>> 
>> That doesn't make sense and doesn't match the code... The structure
>> needs to always have the same in-register layout regardless of the
>> endianness of the CPU, especially since the underlying hypervisor
>> will most likely be BE :-)
>> 
>> Thta's why the code does a be64_to_cpu() when loading it, this in
>> effect performs a "BE" load, which on a BE CPU is just a normal load
>> and on LE is a swap to compensate for the CPU loading it the "wrong 
>> way
>> around".
> 
> Its possible being the end of the week I'm just a little dense, but
> wouldn't be64_to_cpu() imply that we are byte-swapping something that 
> is
> already, or supposedly already, in BE format to cpu endianness? Which 
> on
> a BE cpu I would expect a no-op, and on a LE cpu the 64bit word to have
> been swapped from BE --> LE?
> 
> In my eyes the code does seem to support what I've argued. The same
> thing is done in the scsi VIO drivers. The CRQ structure is laid out 
> and
> annotated BE. We use cpu_to_be() calls to load any non 8bit field.
> Finally, each word is swapped to cpu endian when we hand it off for the
> hcall.
> 
> from ibmvfc_send_event():
> 
>         __be64 *crq_as_u64 = (__be64 *) &evt->crq;
> 
> 	<..snip..>
> 
>         if ((rc = ibmvfc_send_crq(vhost, be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[0]),
>                                   be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[1])))) {
> 
> Again, maybe I'm missing something.
> 

Ok, so you perform really difficult operation for no good reason. You 
say
that the ppc dual-endian works like this: there is an internal in-cpu
representation of numbers which is always the same. What is affected by
switching endian is how memory loads and stores work.

If you pass these two words in registers you never need to swap 
anything.

> Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Word0 | Valid | Type  |     Length    |              Data
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Word1 |                Reserved
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The following definition looks to match:
> 
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>         u8 valid;
>         u8 msg;
>         __be16 len;
>         __be32 data;
>         __be64 reserved;
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));

If under BE valid is first byte then it is MSB and you would get value
to pass in word 0 as (valid << 56) | (type << 48) | (length << 32 ) | 
data.

No swaps involved.

To achieve same with structure and swaps you would indeed first swap the
members and then the whole word. Much harder to read code that way, 
though.

Thanks

Michal

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 12:32 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> Its possible being the end of the week I'm just a little dense, but
> wouldn't be64_to_cpu() imply that we are byte-swapping something that is
> already, or supposedly already, in BE format to cpu endianness? Which on
> a BE cpu I would expect a no-op, and on a LE cpu the 64bit word to have
> been swapped from BE --> LE?

It's in BE format in memory. In LE mode, loading it into a register will
get it the wrong way around, thus we have to swap it again. Once in a
register it has no "endianness" per-se, what matters is that the act
of loading from memory to a register would have loaded it the wrong
way around in LE.

> In my eyes the code does seem to support what I've argued. The same
> thing is done in the scsi VIO drivers. The CRQ structure is laid out and
> annotated BE. We use cpu_to_be() calls to load any non 8bit field.
> Finally, each word is swapped to cpu endian when we hand it off for the
> hcall.
> 
> from ibmvfc_send_event():
> 
>         __be64 *crq_as_u64 = (__be64 *) &evt->crq;
> 
>         <..snip..>
> 
>         if ((rc = ibmvfc_send_crq(vhost, be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[0]),
>                                   be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[1])))) {
> 
> Again, maybe I'm missing something.

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 12:32 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> Its possible being the end of the week I'm just a little dense, but
> wouldn't be64_to_cpu() imply that we are byte-swapping something that is
> already, or supposedly already, in BE format to cpu endianness? Which on
> a BE cpu I would expect a no-op, and on a LE cpu the 64bit word to have
> been swapped from BE --> LE?

It's in BE format in memory. In LE mode, loading it into a register will
get it the wrong way around, thus we have to swap it again. Once in a
register it has no "endianness" per-se, what matters is that the act
of loading from memory to a register would have loaded it the wrong
way around in LE.

> In my eyes the code does seem to support what I've argued. The same
> thing is done in the scsi VIO drivers. The CRQ structure is laid out and
> annotated BE. We use cpu_to_be() calls to load any non 8bit field.
> Finally, each word is swapped to cpu endian when we hand it off for the
> hcall.
> 
> from ibmvfc_send_event():
> 
>         __be64 *crq_as_u64 = (__be64 *) &evt->crq;
> 
>         <..snip..>
> 
>         if ((rc = ibmvfc_send_crq(vhost, be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[0]),
>                                   be64_to_cpu(crq_as_u64[1])))) {
> 
> Again, maybe I'm missing something.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>>>> of
>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>>>>>
>>>>> The structure is defined as
>>>>>
>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>>>         u8 valid;
>>>>>         u8 msg;
>>>>>         __be16 len;
>>>>>         __be32 data;
>>>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>>>>>
>>>>> initialized as
>>>>>
>>>>>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>>>>> ...
>>>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>>>>>
>>>>> and submitted with
>>>>>
>>>>>         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>>>>>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>>>
>>>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>>>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>>>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>>>
>>> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
>>> an endianness.
>>>
>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>>
>>> So we have two things at play here:
>>>
>>>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>>>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
>>> registers MSB first.
>>>
>>> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
>>> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>>>
>>> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
>>> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
>> 
>> If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
>> broken.
>> 
>> Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
>> start with that byte no matter the host endian.
>> crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
>> separately.
>> 
>> On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
>> swapped as part of the integer.
>> 
>> That is,
>> #define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
>> CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
>> on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.
>> 
>> And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
>> used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.
>
> Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Word0 | Valid | Type  |     Length    |              Data
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Word1 |				Reserved
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The following definition looks to match:
>
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>         u8 valid;
>         u8 msg;
>         __be16 len;
>         __be32 data;
>         __be64 reserved;
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));

Well it's a partial match.

Your layout above doesn't define which byte of Length or Data is the MSB
or LSB. So going by that we still don't know the endianness of either
field.

cheers

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>>>> of
>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>>>>>
>>>>> The structure is defined as
>>>>>
>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>>>         u8 valid;
>>>>>         u8 msg;
>>>>>         __be16 len;
>>>>>         __be32 data;
>>>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>>>>>
>>>>> initialized as
>>>>>
>>>>>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>>         u64 *buf =3D (u64 *) &crq;
>>>>> ...
>>>>>         crq.valid =3D (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>>         crq.msg =3D (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>>>>>
>>>>> and submitted with
>>>>>
>>>>>         rc =3D ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>>>>>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>>>
>>>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>>>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>>>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>>>
>>> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
>>> an endianness.
>>>
>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>>
>>> So we have two things at play here:
>>>
>>>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>>>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
>>> registers MSB first.
>>>
>>> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
>>> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>>>
>>> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
>>> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
>>=20
>> If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately=
 is
>> broken.
>>=20
>> Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
>> start with that byte no matter the host endian.
>> crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
>> separately.
>>=20
>> On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should=
 be
>> swapped as part of the integer.
>>=20
>> That is,
>> #define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
>> CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
>> on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.
>>=20
>> And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
>> used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.
>
> Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Word0 | Valid | Type  |     Length    |              Data
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Word1 |				Reserved
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The following definition looks to match:
>
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>         u8 valid;
>         u8 msg;
>         __be16 len;
>         __be32 data;
>         __be64 reserved;
> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));

Well it's a partial match.

Your layout above doesn't define which byte of Length or Data is the MSB
or LSB. So going by that we still don't know the endianness of either
field.

cheers

RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]

From: Tyrel Datwyler
> Sent: 27 January 2017 18:03
> On 01/26/2017 05:50 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> >> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchnek wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
> >>> of
> >>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
> >>>
> >>> The structure is defined as
> >>>
> >>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
> >>>         u8 valid;
> >>>         u8 msg;
> >>>         __be16 len;
> >>>         __be32 data;
> >>>         __be64 reserved;
> >>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
> >>>
> >>> initialized as
> >>>
> >>>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> >>>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
> >>> ...
> >>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> >>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
> >>>
> >>> and submitted with
> >>>
> >>>         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
> >>>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));

Isn't the real fubar here the use of that memory layout structure at all?
It would probably all be better if the call looked like:
	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, MAKE_REQ(IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD,
		VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND, xxx_len, xxx_data), 0);
and MAKE_REQ() did all the required endian independant shifts to generate
the correct 32bit value.

	David

RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]
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=

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Tyrel Datwyler]

On 01/29/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>>> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>>>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The structure is defined as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>>>>         u8 valid;
>>>>>>         u8 msg;
>>>>>>         __be16 len;
>>>>>>         __be32 data;
>>>>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>>>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> initialized as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>>>         u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and submitted with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>>>>>>                               cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>>>>
>>>>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>>>>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>>>>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>>>>
>>>> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
>>>> an endianness.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>>>
>>>> So we have two things at play here:
>>>>
>>>>   - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>>>>   - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
>>>> registers MSB first.
>>>>
>>>> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
>>>> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>>>>
>>>> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
>>>> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
>>>
>>> If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
>>> broken.
>>>
>>> Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
>>> start with that byte no matter the host endian.
>>> crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
>>> separately.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
>>> swapped as part of the integer.
>>>
>>> That is,
>>> #define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
>>> CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
>>> on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.
>>>
>>> And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
>>> used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.
>>
>> Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Word0 | Valid | Type  |     Length    |              Data
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Word1 |				Reserved
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The following definition looks to match:
>>
>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>         u8 valid;
>>         u8 msg;
>>         __be16 len;
>>         __be32 data;
>>         __be64 reserved;
>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
> 
> Well it's a partial match.
> 
> Your layout above doesn't define which byte of Length or Data is the MSB
> or LSB. So going by that we still don't know the endianness of either

I should have been explicit that PAPR uses Big Endian bit and byte
numbering throughout the spec unless otherwise noted.

-Tyrel

> field.
> 
> cheers
> 

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On 01/29/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Word0 | Valid | Type  |     Length    |              Data
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Word1 |				Reserved
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The following definition looks to match:
>>>
>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>         u8 valid;
>>>         u8 msg;
>>>         __be16 len;
>>>         __be32 data;
>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>> 
>> Well it's a partial match.
>> 
>> Your layout above doesn't define which byte of Length or Data is the MSB
>> or LSB. So going by that we still don't know the endianness of either
>
> I should have been explicit that PAPR uses Big Endian bit and byte
> numbering throughout the spec unless otherwise noted.

OK. I didn't actually remember that so yeah good to be explicit.

cheers

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On 01/29/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Byte  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Word0 | Valid | Type  |     Length    |              Data
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Word1 |				Reserved
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The following definition looks to match:
>>>
>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>         u8 valid;
>>>         u8 msg;
>>>         __be16 len;
>>>         __be32 data;
>>>         __be64 reserved;
>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>> 
>> Well it's a partial match.
>> 
>> Your layout above doesn't define which byte of Length or Data is the MSB
>> or LSB. So going by that we still don't know the endianness of either
>
> I should have been explicit that PAPR uses Big Endian bit and byte
> numbering throughout the spec unless otherwise noted.

OK. I didn't actually remember that so yeah good to be explicit.

cheers

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Vicky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 2082 bytes --]

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Vicky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 2012 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 202 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Vicky]

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Adding Vicky from IBM.
> 
> 
> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>> 
>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>>> meaning in the future.
>> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
>> memset is overkill...
>> 
>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>> 
>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>>> ...
>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>> 
>>> and submitted with
>>> 
>>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>> No idea, Nayna may know.
>> 
>> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>> 
>> Jason
> 

I don’t think we want ‘word' to be changed back to be of type ‘u64’.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37e9648071f1


Vicky

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Vicky]

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Adding Vicky from IBM.
>=20
>=20
> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>>=20
>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to =
quiet
>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get =
some
>>> meaning in the future.
>> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
>> memset is overkill...
>>=20
>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>>=20
>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>         __be64 *word =3D (__be64 *)&crq;
>>> ...
>>>         crq.valid =3D (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>         crq.msg =3D (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>         crq.len =3D cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>         crq.data =3D cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>>=20
>>> and submitted with
>>>=20
>>> 	rc =3D ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>> No idea, Nayna may know.
>>=20
>> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>>=20
>> Jason
>=20

I don=92t think we want =91word' to be changed back to be of type =91u64=92=
.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37e9648071f1


Vicky=

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Vicky]

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> Adding Vicky from IBM.
> 
> 
> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>> 
>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>>> meaning in the future.
>> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
>> memset is overkill...
>> 
>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>> 
>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>>> ...
>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>> 
>>> and submitted with
>>> 
>>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>> No idea, Nayna may know.
>> 
>> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>> 
>> Jason
> 

I don’t think we want ‘word' to be changed back to be of type ‘u64’.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37e9648071f1


Vicky

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Vicky <honclo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Adding Vicky from IBM.
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>>>> meaning in the future.
>>> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
>>> memset is overkill...
>>> 
>>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>>> 
>>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>>>> ...
>>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>>> 
>>>> and submitted with
>>>> 
>>>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>>> No idea, Nayna may know.
>>> 
>>> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>>> 
>>> Jason
>> 
>
> I don’t think we want ‘word' to be changed back to be of type ‘u64’.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37e9648071f1

The type of word is basically irrelevant. Unless you're running sparse
and actually checking the errors, which it seems you're not doing:

  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:90:30: warning: cast removes address space of expression
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23:    expected void *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:136:17: warning: cast removes address space of expression
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30:    expected void const *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43:    expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43:    got void *
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52:    expected void *ptr
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46:    expected void const *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf


What matters is how you actually do the byte swaps.

cheers

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Vicky <honclo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Adding Vicky from IBM.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>>>> meaning in the future.
>>> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
>>> memset is overkill...
>>>=20
>>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>>>=20
>>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>         __be64 *word =3D (__be64 *)&crq;
>>>> ...
>>>>         crq.valid =3D (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>         crq.msg =3D (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>>         crq.len =3D cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>>         crq.data =3D cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>>>=20
>>>> and submitted with
>>>>=20
>>>> 	rc =3D ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>>> No idea, Nayna may know.
>>>=20
>>> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>>>=20
>>> Jason
>>=20
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think we want =E2=80=98word' to be changed back to be of =
type =E2=80=98u64=E2=80=99.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135=
c37e9648071f1

The type of word is basically irrelevant. Unless you're running sparse
and actually checking the errors, which it seems you're not doing:

  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:90:30: warning: cast removes address space=
 of expression
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23: warning: incorrect type in argument=
 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23:    expected void *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_=
buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:136:17: warning: cast removes address spac=
e of expression
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46:    expected unsigned long long [un=
signed] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype=
] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31:    expected unsigned long long [un=
signed] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype=
] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46:    expected unsigned long long [un=
signed] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype=
] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31:    expected unsigned long long [un=
signed] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype=
] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30:    expected void const *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce=
_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46:    expected unsigned long long [un=
signed] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype=
] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31:    expected unsigned long long [un=
signed] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype=
] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43: warning: incorrect type in assignm=
ent (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43:    expected void [noderef] <asn:2>=
*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43:    got void *
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 2 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52:    expected void *ptr
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce=
_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46: warning: incorrect type in argumen=
t 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46:    expected void const *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce=
_buf


What matters is how you actually do the byte swaps.

cheers

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michael Ellerman]

Vicky <honclo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Adding Vicky from IBM.
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>>>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>>>> meaning in the future.
>>> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
>>> memset is overkill...
>>> 
>>>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
>>>> 
>>>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
>>>> ...
>>>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
>>>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
>>>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
>>>> 
>>>> and submitted with
>>>> 
>>>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
>>>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
>>>> meaning it is swapped twice.
>>> No idea, Nayna may know.
>>> 
>>> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
>>> 
>>> Jason
>> 
>
> I don’t think we want ‘word' to be changed back to be of type ‘u64’.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37e9648071f1

The type of word is basically irrelevant. Unless you're running sparse
and actually checking the errors, which it seems you're not doing:

  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:90:30: warning: cast removes address space of expression
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23:    expected void *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:91:23:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:136:17: warning: cast removes address space of expression
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:188:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:189:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:215:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:216:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30:    expected void const *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:294:30:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w1
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:342:46:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31:    expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] w2
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:343:31:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43:    expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:494:43:    got void *
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52:    expected void *ptr
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:501:52:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46:    expected void const *<noident>
  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_ibmvtpm.c:507:46:    got void [noderef] <asn:2>*rtce_buf


What matters is how you actually do the byte swaps.

cheers

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchánek]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:40:33 -0500
Vicky <honclo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Adding Vicky from IBM.
> > 
> > 
> > On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:  
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
> >>   
> >>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
> >>> quiet gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused
> >>> fields get some meaning in the future.  
> >> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
> >> memset is overkill...
> >>   
> >>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
> >>> 
> >>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> >>>         __be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
> >>> ...
> >>>         crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> >>>         crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
> >>>         crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
> >>>         crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> >>> 
> >>> and submitted with
> >>> 
> >>> 	rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
> >>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> >>> meaning it is swapped twice.  
> >> No idea, Nayna may know.
> >> 
> >> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
> >> 
> >> Jason  
> >   
> 
> I don’t think we want ‘word' to be changed back to be of type
> ‘u64’.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37e9648071f1

The word is marked correctly as __be64 in that patch because count and
handle are swapped to BE when saved to it and the whole word is then
swapped again when loaded. If you just load ((u64)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD <<
56 | ((u64)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND << 48) | ((u64)count << 32) |
ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle in a register it works equally well
without any __be and swaps involved.

Note however that __be64 and u64 are all the same to the compiler. It's
just a note for the reader and analysis tools.

Thanks

Michal

Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[Michal Suchánek]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:40:33 -0500
Vicky <honclo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai <ashleydlai@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >=20
> > Adding Vicky from IBM.
> >=20
> >=20
> > On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: =20
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
> >>  =20
> >>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
> >>> quiet gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused
> >>> fields get some meaning in the future. =20
> >> Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a patch?
> >> memset is overkill...
> >>  =20
> >>> However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
> >>>=20
> >>> 	struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
> >>>         __be64 *word =3D (__be64 *)&crq;
> >>> ...
> >>>         crq.valid =3D (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
> >>>         crq.msg =3D (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
> >>>         crq.len =3D cpu_to_be16(count);
> >>>         crq.data =3D cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
> >>>=20
> >>> and submitted with
> >>>=20
> >>> 	rc =3D ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
> >>>                               be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
> >>> meaning it is swapped twice. =20
> >> No idea, Nayna may know.
> >>=20
> >> My guess is that '__be64 *word' should be 'u64 *word'...
> >>=20
> >> Jason =20
> >  =20
>=20
> I don=E2=80=99t think we want =E2=80=98word' to be changed back to be of =
type
> =E2=80=98u64=E2=80=99.   Please see commit 62dfd912ab3b5405b6fe72d0135c37=
e9648071f1

The word is marked correctly as __be64 in that patch because count and
handle are swapped to BE when saved to it and the whole word is then
swapped again when loaded. If you just load ((u64)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD <<
56 | ((u64)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND << 48) | ((u64)count << 32) |
ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle in a register it works equally well
without any __be and swaps involved.

Note however that __be64 and u64 are all the same to the compiler. It's
just a note for the reader and analysis tools.

Thanks

Michal

RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]

From: Michal Suchánek
> Sent: 02 February 2017 11:30
...
> The word is marked correctly as __be64 in that patch because count and
> handle are swapped to BE when saved to it and the whole word is then
> swapped again when loaded. If you just load ((u64)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD <<
> 56 | ((u64)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND << 48) | ((u64)count << 32) |
> ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle in a register it works equally well
> without any __be and swaps involved.

And that version will almost certainly generate much better code.

	David

RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]
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RE: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency

[David Laight]

From: Michal Suchánek
> Sent: 02 February 2017 11:30
...
> The word is marked correctly as __be64 in that patch because count and
> handle are swapped to BE when saved to it and the whole word is then
> swapped again when loaded. If you just load ((u64)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD <<
> 56 | ((u64)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND << 48) | ((u64)count << 32) |
> ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle in a register it works equally well
> without any __be and swaps involved.

And that version will almost certainly generate much better code.

	David