On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 02:02:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:49:08PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:26 PM David Gibson > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:55:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:58 AM André Przywara wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 26/10/2020 21:51, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:23 AM Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:58:04AM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 08:32:54AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:00:13PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 06:49:14PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> But what does all of this _mean_ ? I kinda think I have an answer now. > > > > > >>>>>> One of the things that sticks out is 6dcb8ba408ec adds a lot and > > > > > >>>>>> 11738cf01f15 reduces it just a little. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Ah, that's a tricky one. If we don't handle unaligned accesses we > > > > > >>>>> instead get intermittent bug reports where it just crashes. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> We really need to talk about that then. There was a problem of people > > > > > >>>> turning off the sanity check for making sure the entire device tree was > > > > > >>>> aligned and then having everything crash. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Ok... I'm not really sure where you're going with that thought. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In my reading of the mailing list history of how this issue came up, > > > > > >> it was someone was booting a dragonboard or something, and they (or > > > > > >> rather, the board maintainer set by default) the flag to use the device > > > > > >> tree wherever it is in memory and NOT to relocate it to a properly > > > > > >> aligned address. This in turn lead to the kernel getting an unaligned > > > > > >> device tree and everything crashing. The "I know what I'm doing" flag > > > > > >> was set, violated the documented requirements for device trees need to > > > > > >> reside in memory and everything blew up. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> After that it was noticed that there could be some internal > > > > > >> mis-alignment and if you tried those accesses on a CPU that doesn't > > > > > >> support doing those reads easily there could be problems, but that's not > > > > > >> a common at all case (as noted by it not having been seen in practice). > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor a problem on many environments to begin with. More below... > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I suppose we could add an ASSUME_ALIGNED_ACCESS flag, and it will just > > > > > >>>>> break for either an unaligned dtb (unlikely) or if you attempt to load > > > > > >>>>> an unaligned value from a property (more likely, but don't add the > > > > > >>>>> flag if you're not sure you don't need it). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> So long as it's abstracted in such a way that we don't grow the size of > > > > > >>>> everything again, yes, that is the right way forward I think. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> All the ASSUME flags should be resolved at compile time (at least with > > > > > >>> normal optimization levels enabled in the compiler), so testing for > > > > > >>> those shouldn't increase size at all. If they do, something is wrong. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'm saying that how ever this new ASSUME flag is done, it needs to be > > > > > >> done in such a way the compiler really will be smart about it. So > > > > > >> something like making a new function that does fdt64_ld() if we aren't > > > > > >> ASSUME_ALIGNED_ACCESS and fdt64_to_cpu() if we are > > > > > >> ASSUME_ALIGNED_ACCESS. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, unaligned accesses again... To summarize, both performance and > > > > > > size suffer with not doing unaligned accesses. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not a HAS_UNALIGNED_ACCESS flag instead (or the inverse) that will > > > > > > do unaligned accesses? That would be more aligned with what the system > > > > > > can support rather than sanity checking associated with ASSUME_*. > > > > > > So, there are kind of two things here, (1) is "my platform can handle > > > unaligned accesses" and (2) is "assume I don't need unaligned > > > accesses". We can use the fast & small versions of fdt32_ld() etc. if > > > either is true. However we need to consider those separately, because > > > they can be independently true (or not) for different reasons. (1) > > > depends on the hardware, whereas (2) depends on how you're using dtc, > > > and, see below, you may need at least unaligned-handling fdt64_ld() in > > > more cases than you think. > > > > Okay, I guess you were thinking of (2) for ASSUME_ALIGNED_ACCESS, but > > I read it as (1). > > Yes. > > > > > > > To repeat from last time, everything ARMv6 and up can do unaligned > > > > > > accesses if enabled. > > > > > > > > > > But that requires the MMU to be enabled, doesn't it? If I read the ARM > > > > > ARM correctly, unaligned accesses always trap on device memory, > > > > > regardless of SCTLR.A. And without the MMU enabled everything is device > > > > > memory. We compile U-Boot with -mno-unaligned-access/-mstrict-align to > > > > > cope with that, and that most likely affects libfdt as well? > > > > > > > > Ah yes, I think you are right. > > > > > > > > In that case, seems like we should figure out whether (internal) > > > > unaligned accesses are possible with dtc generated dtbs at least > > > > rather than just "not a common at all case (as noted by it not having > > > > been seen in practice)." I'm sure David will point out that not all > > > > dtbs come from dtc, but all the ones u-boot deals with do in > > > > reality. > > > > > > Assuming the blob itself is 8-byte aligned in memory, then all > > > structural elements (i.e. the tree metadata) of a compliant dtb will > > > be naturally aligned. The spec requires 8-byte alignment of the mem > > > reserve block w.r.t. the base of the blob and 4 byte aligned structure > > > block w.r.t. the base of the blob. Likewise the layout of the mem > > > reserve block will preserve 8-byte alignment of all the 64-bit values > > > it contains, assuming the block itself starts 8-byte aligned. > > > Similarly the structure blob will preserve 4-byte alignment of all its > > > tags and other structural data (this amounts to requiring an alignment > > > gap after node names and property values). > > > > > > However, "all structural elements" does not include values within > > > property values themselves. Assuming propery alignment of the blocks > > > and the blob itself, then all property values will *begin* 4 byte > > > aligned. However that leaves two relevant cases: > > > > > > a) 64-bit property values may be 4-byte aligned but not 8-byte > > > aligned > > > > I'd assume that while an arch may support only the above in terms of > > misalignment, an arch that supports any alignment would always support > > this as part of that. It would just be odd to support byte alignment > > only up to 32-bit. > > Yes, I'd expect so. > > > I don't think we need to optimize the former case. > > I don't see how we would, in any case. > > > > b) complex property values including both strings and integers > > > typically use a packed representation with no alignment gaps. > > > Such property structures are usually avoided in modern bindings, > > > but they definitely exist in a bunch of older bindings. Obviously > > > that means that integer values sitting after arbitrary length > > > strings may not have any natural alignment > > > > That's the user's problem IMO. Users of older bindings having this > > aren't likely using a newish function like fdt32_ld either. > > That doesn't follow. The bindings still exist and are in use, e.g. on > IBM PAPR systems, that's not correlated to how recent teh libfdt is. > > > > So acccesses made by libfdt internally should be safe(*) assuming the > > > blob itself is loaded 8-byte aligned, and the dtb is compliant. > > > However the libfdt user may hit both problems (a) and (b) getting > > > things they actually want from the tree. fdt{32,64}_{ld,st}() are > > > intended to handle those cases, so that they're useful for the caller > > > to pull things from properties as well as for libfdt internal > > > accesses. > > > > > > (*) There are a number of other functions that looked like they might > > > be dangerous for case (a) because they are based on 64-bit > > > property values: fdt_setprop_inplace_u64(), fdt_property_u64(), > > > fdt_setprop_u64(), fdt_appendprop_u64() and > > > fdt_appendprop_addrrange(). However I think they're actually > > > ok, because the way they're built in terms of other functions > > > means there's implicitly a memcpy() from a byte buffer. > > > > > > > > Also some 32-bit ARM platforms run U-Boot proper with the MMU disabled > > > > > all the time, and I know of at least the sunxi-aarch64 SPL running with > > > > > the MMU off as well. > > > > > > > > I'm making a mental note of this for the next time performance issues come up. > > > > > > Right, running early with MMU off is definitely a real use case for > > > libfdt. For similar reasons we can't assume we have an OS which will > > > trap and handle unaligned accesses, which we might for a more > > > conventional userspace library. > > > > > > This kind of underscores why I'm a bit hesitant to introduce "my > > > platform handles unaligned acccesses" flag. Not only does it require > > > detailed knowledge of the target CPU, but it can also depend on > > > exactly what mode that hardware is in. > > > > I think there's a more simple solution with no flags. Given all > > internal accesses are at least 4-byte aligned, libfdt should just do > > 32-bit accesses internally (as it used to). Maybe we need a check up > > front that the dtb is 8-byte aligned though. > > That's not a bad idea. We could do it in fdt_ro_probe_(). > > Although, one extra case occurs to me. Someone (is it uboot?) has a > wacky format where dtbs for several platforms, along with kernels and > other information are bundled together in a big dtb (that is, using > the dtb encoding, even though it's not actually a device tree). The > "sub-dtbs" in that will be 4-byte aligned, but maybe not 8-byte > aligned. Yes, about 12 years ago now U-Boot introduced (but it's useful anywhere, really...) FIT images which are what you're thinking of. That's unrelated to all of this however. -- Tom