All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Verify whitelist of context registers
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:50:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <38631fbf-d116-7ec1-a405-de692dbe4a62@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190416091235.26089-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>


On 16/04/2019 10:12, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The RING_NONPRIV allows us to add registers to a whitelist that allows
> userspace to modify them. Ideally such registers should be safe and
> saved within the context such that they do not impact system behaviour
> for other users. This selftest verifies that those registers we do add
> are (a) then writable by userspace and (b) only affect a single client.
> 
> Opens:
> - Is GEN9_SLICE_COMMON_ECO_CHICKEN1 really write-only?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
> Compile fix for writeonly_reg()
> ---
>   .../drm/i915/selftests/intel_workarounds.c    | 320 ++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 320 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_workarounds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_workarounds.c
> index a363748a7a4f..f40e0937ec96 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_workarounds.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_workarounds.c
> @@ -700,6 +700,325 @@ static int live_reset_whitelist(void *arg)
>   	return err;
>   }
>   
> +static int read_whitelisted_registers(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> +				      struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> +				      struct i915_vma *results)
> +{
> +	intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> +	struct i915_request *rq;
> +	u32 srm, *cs;
> +	int err, i;
> +
> +	rq = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> +	with_intel_runtime_pm(engine->i915, wakeref)
> +		rq = i915_request_alloc(engine, ctx);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rq))
> +		return PTR_ERR(rq);
> +
> +	err = i915_vma_move_to_active(results, rq, EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto err_req;

Why do you track the vma? There's a wait below and in scrub you even 
flush manually.

> +
> +	srm = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM;
> +	if (INTEL_GEN(ctx->i915) >= 8)
> +		srm++;
> +
> +	cs = intel_ring_begin(rq, 4 * engine->whitelist.count);
> +	if (IS_ERR(cs)) {
> +		err = PTR_ERR(cs);
> +		goto err_req;
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < engine->whitelist.count; i++) {
> +		u64 offset = results->node.start + sizeof(u32) * i;
> +
> +		*cs++ = srm;
> +		*cs++ = i915_mmio_reg_offset(engine->whitelist.list[i].reg);
> +		*cs++ = lower_32_bits(offset);
> +		*cs++ = upper_32_bits(offset);
> +	}
> +	intel_ring_advance(rq, cs);
> +
> +err_req:
> +	i915_request_add(rq);
> +
> +	if (i915_request_wait(rq, I915_WAIT_LOCKED, HZ / 5) < 0)
> +		err = -EIO;
> +
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +static int scrub_whitelisted_registers(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> +				       struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> +{
> +	intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> +	struct i915_request *rq;
> +	struct i915_vma *batch;
> +	int i, err;
> +	u32 *cs;
> +
> +	batch = create_batch(ctx);
> +	if (IS_ERR(batch))
> +		return PTR_ERR(batch);
> +
> +	cs = i915_gem_object_pin_map(batch->obj, I915_MAP_WC);
> +	if (IS_ERR(cs)) {
> +		err = PTR_ERR(cs);
> +		goto err_batch;
> +	}
> +
> +	*cs++ = MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM(engine->whitelist.count);
> +	for (i = 0; i < engine->whitelist.count; i++) {
> +		*cs++ = i915_mmio_reg_offset(engine->whitelist.list[i].reg);
> +		*cs++ = 0xffffffff;
> +	}
> +	*cs++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> +
> +	i915_gem_object_flush_map(batch->obj);
> +	i915_gem_chipset_flush(ctx->i915);
> +
> +	rq = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> +	with_intel_runtime_pm(engine->i915, wakeref)
> +		rq = i915_request_alloc(engine, ctx);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rq))
> +		goto err_unpin;
> +
> +	if (engine->emit_init_breadcrumb) { /* Be nice if we hang */
> +		err = engine->emit_init_breadcrumb(rq);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err_request;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = engine->emit_bb_start(rq, batch->node.start, 0, 0);

Why is batch needed here when everything else is happy to run from the ring?

> +
> +err_request:
> +	i915_request_add(rq);
> +	if (i915_request_wait(rq, I915_WAIT_LOCKED, HZ / 5) < 0)
> +		err = -EIO;
> +
> +err_unpin:
> +	i915_gem_object_unpin_map(batch->obj);
> +err_batch:
> +	i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&batch, 0);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +static bool pardon_reg(struct drm_i915_private *i915, i915_reg_t reg)
> +{
> +	/* Alas, we must pardon some whitelists */
> +	static const struct {
> +		i915_reg_t reg;
> +		unsigned long gen_mask;
> +	} pardon[] = {
> +		{ GEN9_CTX_PREEMPT_REG, INTEL_GEN_MASK(9, 9) },
> +		{ GEN8_L3SQCREG4, INTEL_GEN_MASK(9, 9) },
> +	};
> +	u32 offset = i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pardon); i++) {
> +		if (INTEL_INFO(i915)->gen_mask & pardon[i].gen_mask &&
> +		    i915_mmio_reg_offset(pardon[i].reg) == offset)
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static int eq_whitelisted_registers(struct i915_vma *A,
> +				    struct i915_vma *B,
> +				    struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> +{
> +	u32 *a, *b;
> +	int i, err;
> +
> +	a = i915_gem_object_pin_map(A->obj, I915_MAP_WB);
> +	if (IS_ERR(a))
> +		return PTR_ERR(a);
> +
> +	b = i915_gem_object_pin_map(B->obj, I915_MAP_WB);
> +	if (IS_ERR(b)) {
> +		err = PTR_ERR(b);
> +		goto err_a;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = 0;
> +	for (i = 0; i < engine->whitelist.count; i++) {
> +		if (a[i] != b[i] &&
> +		    !pardon_reg(engine->i915, engine->whitelist.list[i].reg)) {
> +			pr_err("[%d] Whitelisted register 0x%4x not context saved: A=%08x, B=%08x\n",
> +			       i, i915_mmio_reg_offset(engine->whitelist.list[i].reg),
> +			       a[i], b[i]);
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	i915_gem_object_unpin_map(B->obj);
> +err_a:
> +	i915_gem_object_unpin_map(A->obj);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +static bool writeonly_reg(struct drm_i915_private *i915, i915_reg_t reg)
> +{
> +	static const struct {
> +		i915_reg_t reg;
> +		unsigned long gen_mask;
> +	} wo[] = {
> +		{ GEN9_SLICE_COMMON_ECO_CHICKEN1, INTEL_GEN_MASK(9, 9) },
> +	};

What is the difference between pardoned and whitelisted?

> +	u32 offset = i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wo); i++) {
> +		if (INTEL_INFO(i915)->gen_mask & wo[i].gen_mask &&
> +		    i915_mmio_reg_offset(wo[i].reg) == offset)
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;

You could consolidate into one find_reg which takes the array.

> +}
> +
> +static int neq_whitelisted_registers(struct i915_vma *A,
> +				     struct i915_vma *B,
> +				     struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> +{
> +	u32 *a, *b;
> +	int i, err;
> +
> +	a = i915_gem_object_pin_map(A->obj, I915_MAP_WB);
> +	if (IS_ERR(a))
> +		return PTR_ERR(a);
> +
> +	b = i915_gem_object_pin_map(B->obj, I915_MAP_WB);
> +	if (IS_ERR(b)) {
> +		err = PTR_ERR(b);
> +		goto err_a;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = 0;
> +	for (i = 0; i < engine->whitelist.count; i++) {
> +		if (a[i] == b[i] &&
> +		    !writeonly_reg(engine->i915, engine->whitelist.list[i].reg)) {
> +			pr_err("[%d] Whitelist register 0x%4x:%08x was unwritable\n",
> +			       i, i915_mmio_reg_offset(engine->whitelist.list[i].reg), a[i]);
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	i915_gem_object_unpin_map(B->obj);
> +err_a:
> +	i915_gem_object_unpin_map(A->obj);
> +	return err;
> +}

eq and neq could also be cheaply consolidated into one taking table and 
error message.

> +
> +static int live_isolated_whitelist(void *arg)
> +{
> +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = arg;
> +	struct {
> +		struct i915_gem_context *ctx;
> +		struct i915_vma *scratch[2];
> +	} client[2] = {};
> +	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
> +	enum intel_engine_id id;
> +	int i, err = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Check that a write into a whitelist register works, but
> +	 * invisible to a second context.
> +	 */
> +
> +	if (!intel_engines_has_context_isolation(i915))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (!i915->kernel_context->ppgtt)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(client); i++) {
> +		struct i915_gem_context *c;
> +
> +		c = kernel_context(i915);
> +		if (IS_ERR(c)) {
> +			err = PTR_ERR(c);
> +			goto err;
> +		}
> +
> +		client[i].scratch[0] = create_scratch(&c->ppgtt->vm, 1024);
> +		if (IS_ERR(client[i].scratch[0])) {
> +			err = PTR_ERR(client[i].scratch[0]);
> +			kernel_context_close(c);
> +			goto err;
> +		}
> +
> +		client[i].scratch[1] = create_scratch(&c->ppgtt->vm, 1024);
> +		if (IS_ERR(client[i].scratch[1])) {
> +			err = PTR_ERR(client[i].scratch[1]);
> +			i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&client[i].scratch[0], 0);
> +			kernel_context_close(c);
> +			goto err;
> +		}
> +
> +		client[i].ctx = c;
> +	}
> +
> +	for_each_engine(engine, i915, id) {
> +		if (!engine->whitelist.count)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/* Read default values */
> +		err = read_whitelisted_registers(client[0].ctx, engine,
> +						 client[0].scratch[0]);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err;
> +
> +		/* Try to overwrite registers (should only affect ctx0) */
> +		err = scrub_whitelisted_registers(client[0].ctx, engine);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err;
> +
> +		/* Read values from ctx1, we expect these to be defaults */
> +		err = read_whitelisted_registers(client[1].ctx, engine,
> +						 client[1].scratch[0]);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err;
> +
> +		/* Verify that both reads return the same default values */
> +		err = eq_whitelisted_registers(client[0].scratch[0],
> +					       client[1].scratch[0],
> +					       engine);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err;
> +
> +		/* Read back the updated values in ctx0 */
> +		err = read_whitelisted_registers(client[0].ctx, engine,
> +						 client[0].scratch[1]);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err;
> +
> +		/* User should be granted privilege to overwhite regs */
> +		err = neq_whitelisted_registers(client[0].scratch[0],
> +						client[0].scratch[1],
> +						engine);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto err;
> +	}
> +
> +err:
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(client); i++) {
> +		if (!client[i].ctx)
> +			break;
> +
> +		i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&client[i].scratch[1], 0);
> +		i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&client[i].scratch[0], 0);
> +		kernel_context_close(client[i].ctx);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (igt_flush_test(i915, I915_WAIT_LOCKED))
> +		err = -EIO;
> +
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
>   static bool verify_gt_engine_wa(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>   				struct wa_lists *lists, const char *str)
>   {
> @@ -844,6 +1163,7 @@ int intel_workarounds_live_selftests(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
>   	static const struct i915_subtest tests[] = {
>   		SUBTEST(live_dirty_whitelist),
>   		SUBTEST(live_reset_whitelist),
> +		SUBTEST(live_isolated_whitelist),
>   		SUBTEST(live_gpu_reset_gt_engine_workarounds),
>   		SUBTEST(live_engine_reset_gt_engine_workarounds),
>   	};
> 

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-16 14:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-16  8:10 [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/i915: Verify workarounds immediately after application Chris Wilson
2019-04-16  8:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] drm/i915: Verify the engine workarounds stick on application Chris Wilson
2019-04-16  9:43   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-04-16  9:57     ` Chris Wilson
2019-04-16 10:36       ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-04-16 10:49         ` Chris Wilson
2019-04-16  8:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/i915: Make workaround verification *optional* Chris Wilson
2019-04-16  9:48   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-04-16 11:24     ` Chris Wilson
2019-04-16  8:10 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] drm/i915/selftests: Verify whitelist of context registers Chris Wilson
2019-04-16  9:12   ` [PATCH] " Chris Wilson
2019-04-16 14:50     ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2019-04-24 10:00       ` Chris Wilson
2019-04-24 11:03         ` Chris Wilson
2019-04-24 11:10           ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-04-16 21:28   ` [PATCH v2 4/4] " kbuild test robot
2019-04-16  9:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/i915: Verify workarounds immediately after application Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-04-16 11:10 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [v2,1/4] drm/i915: Verify workarounds immediately after application (rev2) Patchwork
2019-04-16 15:07 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-04-15 16:00 [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915/selftests: Verify whitelist of context registers Chris Wilson
2019-04-15 17:41 ` [PATCH] " Chris Wilson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=38631fbf-d116-7ec1-a405-de692dbe4a62@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.