Re: [PATCH 3/7] ACPI/IORT: Handle memory address size limits as limits

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Vineet Gupta <vgupta@kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
	Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] ACPI/IORT: Handle memory address size limits as limits
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:39:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZXctTJ-q9e1FPBhH@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231211153023.GA26048@willie-the-truck>

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:30:24PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:01:27PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 2023-12-11 1:27 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 05:43:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > > Return the Root Complex/Named Component memory address size limit as an
> > > > inclusive limit value, rather than an exclusive size.  This saves us
> > > > having to special-case 64-bit overflow, and simplifies our caller too.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/acpi/arm64/dma.c  |  9 +++------
> > > >   drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> > > >   include/linux/acpi_iort.h |  4 ++--
> > > >   3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > > > index 6496ff5a6ba2..eb64d8e17dd1 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > > > @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *input_id)
> > > >   { return -ENODEV; }
> > > >   #endif
> > > > -static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> > > > +static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *limit)
> > > >   {
> > > >   	struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> > > >   	struct acpi_iort_named_component *ncomp;
> > > > @@ -1384,13 +1384,12 @@ static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> > > >   		return -EINVAL;
> > > >   	}
> > > > -	*size = ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX :
> > > > -			1ULL<<ncomp->memory_address_limit;
> > > > +	*limit = (1ULL << ncomp->memory_address_limit) - 1;
> > > 
> > > The old code handled 'ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64' -- why is it safe
> > > to drop that? You mention it in the cover letter, so clearly I'm missing
> > > something!
> > 
> > Because an unsigned shift by 64 or more generates 0 (modulo 2^64), thus
> > subtracting 1 results in the correct all-bits-set value for an inclusive
> > 64-bit limit.
> 
> Oh, I'd have thought you'd have gotten one of those "left shift count >=
> width of type" warnings if you did that.

I think you'll get a UBSAN splat, but here the compiler doesn't know what
'ncomp->memory_address_limit' will be and so doesn't produce a compile-time
warning.

Regardless, it's undefined behaviour.

Mark.