From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5ECC31E45 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F0120449 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:12:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1560438764; bh=fWn/j2co1eFhB4DIu2nWHccLcw32ULZkm0SQPN00GJ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=VJsAqRCDBxNIwo4cvliILuY33jlmULaPev1USGqeuTdLSjV7DaqhMN2N2XDvG68CL Y3mZ2y6r4kjGP9I6XWK/v4xNF3yCNmauo4JEEv1GRRdphHa6wdthIpRVnENnzZ0sXf LmLiYlfTbH16i5bySMLSnijQyJ8utty2mliQ+CsA= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727135AbfFMPMg (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:12:36 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57566 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732283AbfFMNqx (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:46:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (173-25-83-245.client.mchsi.com [173.25.83.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75D0F20851; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:46:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1560433611; bh=fWn/j2co1eFhB4DIu2nWHccLcw32ULZkm0SQPN00GJ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cG+i+kOKixoCQcmut8i62OMOBk9DfbfDH7NSPCeVW9lIlCZ/A8keKKXgTcX6v8HFC k++fvHnF3gzHI3CIOB1+q1xZS2y/fkJcvmGVwcRODyrgW2R3gL5YUXnsUB7u3CyR05 s0iiD7aWcKwY4IIEZ6e80nDIeKylwpvNYD6cH0oY= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:46:50 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: John Garry Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] lib: logic_pio: Reject accesses to unregistered CPU MMIO regions Message-ID: <20190613134650.GF13533@google.com> References: <1560262374-67875-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <1560262374-67875-3-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <20190613032034.GE13533@google.com> <2d5e6112-be27-33c2-c1fd-6ab06405fa40@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2d5e6112-be27-33c2-c1fd-6ab06405fa40@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:17:37AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 13/06/2019 04:20, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:12:53PM +0800, John Garry wrote: > > > Currently when accessing logical indirect PIO addresses in > > > logic_{in, out}{,s}, we first ensure that the region is registered. > > > I think logic_pio is specifically concerned with I/O port space, so > > it's a little bit unfortunate that we named this "PIO". > > > > PIO is a general term for "Programmed I/O", which just means the CPU > > is involved in each transfer, as opposed to DMA. The transfers can be > > to either MMIO or I/O port space. > > > > So this ends up being a little confusing because I think you mean > > "Port I/O", not "Programmed I/O". > > Personally I agree that the naming isn't great. But then Arnd does think > that "PIO" is appropriate. > > There were many different names along the way to this support merged, and I > think that the naming became almost irrelevant in the end. Yep, Arnd is right. The "PIO" name contributed a little to my confusion, but I think the bigger piece was that I read the "indirect PIO addresses" above as being parallel to the "CPU MMIO regions" below, when in fact, they are not. The arguments to logic_inb() are always port addresses, never CPU MMIO addresses, but in some cases logic_inb() internally references a CPU MMIO region that corresponds to the port address. Possible commit log text: The logic_{in,out}*() functions access two regions of I/O port addresses: 1) [0, MMIO_UPPER_LIMIT): these are assumed to be LOGIC_PIO_CPU_MMIO regions, where a bridge converts CPU loads and stores to MMIO space on its primary side into I/O port transactions on its secondary side. 2) [MMIO_UPPER_LIMIT, IO_SPACE_LIMIT): these are assumed to be LOGIC_PIO_INDIRECT regions, where we verify that the region was registered by logic_pio_register_range() before calling the logic_pio_host_ops functions to perform the access. Previously there was no requirement that accesses to the LOGIC_PIO_CPU_MMIO area matched anything registered by logic_pio_register_range(), and accesses to unregistered I/O ports could cause exceptions like the one below. Verify that accesses to ports in the LOGIC_PIO_CPU_MMIO area correspond to registered ranges. Accesses to ports outside those registered ranges fail (logic_in*() returns ~0 data and logic_out*() does nothing). This matches the x86 behavior where in*() returns ~0 if no device responds, and out*() is dropped if no device claims it. > > 1) The simple "bridge converts CPU MMIO space to PCI I/O port space" > > flavor is essentially identical to what ia64 (and probably other > > architectures) does. This should really be combined somehow. > > Maybe. For ia64, it seems to have some "platform" versions of IO port > accessors, and then also accessors need a fence barrier. I'm not sure how > well that would fit with logical PIO. It would need further analysis. Right. That shouldn't be part of this series, but I think it would be nice to someday unify the ia64 add_io_space() path with the pci_register_io_range() path. There might have to be ia64-specific accessors at the bottom for the fences, but I think the top side could be unified because it's conceptually the same thing -- an MMIO region that is translated by a bridge to an I/O port region. > > 2) If you made a default set of logic_pio_host_ops that merely did > > loads/stores and maybe added a couple fields in the struct > > logic_pio_hwaddr, I bet you could unify the two kinds so > > logic_inb() would look something like this: > > Yeah, I did consider this. We do not provide host operators for PCI MMIO > ranges. We could simply provide regular versions of inb et al for this. A > small obstacle for this is that we redefine inb et al, so would need > "direct" versions also. It would be strange. Yeah, just a thought, maybe it wouldn't work out. > > > Any failed checks silently return. > > > > I *think* what you're doing here is making inb/outb/etc work the same > > as on x86, i.e., if no device responds to an inb(), the caller gets > > ~0, and if no device claims an outb() the data gets dropped. > > Correct, but with a caveat: when you say no device responds, this means that > - for arm64 case - no PCI MMIO region is mapped. Yep. I was describing the x86 behavior, where we don't do any mapping and all we can say is that no device responded. Bjorn