Linux-PCI Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	"open list:MEDIA DRIVERS FOR RENESAS - FCP" 
	<linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] PCI: rcar: Do not abort on too many inbound dma-ranges
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:06:17 +0100
Message-ID: <ccf8a4f9-1758-bafc-797c-714f06810db3@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ca16e883-27d3-2cd0-7d71-fa9b169dcccd@gmail.com>

On 17/10/2019 11:55, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 10/17/19 9:06 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>>> I suppose if your intent is to use inbound windows as a poor man's
>>>>>> IOMMU to prevent accesses to the holes, then yes you would list them
>>>>>> out. But I think that's wrong and difficult to maintain. You'd also
>>>>>> need to deal with reserved-memory regions too.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the problem with that? The bootloader has all that information
>>>>> and can patch the DT correctly. In fact, in my specific case, I have
>>>>> platform which can be populated with differently sized DRAM, so the
>>>>> holes are also dynamically calculated ; there is no one DT then, the
>>>>> bootloader is responsible to generate the dma-ranges accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> The problems are it doesn't work:
>>>>
>>>> Your dma-mask and offset are not going to be correct.
>>>>
>>>> You are running out of inbound windows. Your patch does nothing to
>>>> solve that. The solution would be merging multiple dma-ranges entries
>>>> to a single inbound window. We'd have to do that both for dma-mask and
>>>> inbound windows. The former would also have to figure out which
>>>> entries apply to setting up dma-mask. I'm simply suggesting just do
>>>> that up front and avoid any pointless splits.
>>>
>>> But then the PCI device can trigger a transaction to non-existent DRAM
>>> and cause undefined behavior. Surely we do not want that ?
>>
>> The PCI device will trigger transactions to memory only when instructed
>> to do so by Linux, right?  Hence if Linux takes into account chosen/memory
>> and dma-ranges, there is no problem?
> 
> Unless of course the remote device initiates a transfer. And if the
> controller is programmed such that accesses to the missing DRAM in the
> holes are not filtered out by the controller, then the controller will
> gladly let the transaction through. Do we really want to let this happen ?

If you've got devices making random unsolicited accesses then who's to 
say they wouldn't also hit valid windows and corrupt memory? If it's 
happening at all you've already lost. And realistically, if the address 
isn't valid then it's not going to make much difference anyway - in 
probably 99% of cases, either the transaction doesn't hit a window and 
the host bridge returns a completer abort, or it does hit a window, the 
AXI side returns DECERR or SLVERR, and the host bridge translates that 
into a completer abort. Consider also that many PCI IPs don't have 
discrete windows and just map the entirety of PCI mem space directly to 
the system PA space.

I don't believe this is a valid argument for anything whichever way round.

Robin.

  reply index

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-09 17:57 [PATCH V3 1/3] PCI: rcar: Move the inbound index check marek.vasut
2019-08-09 17:57 ` [PATCH V3 2/3] PCI: rcar: Do not abort on too many inbound dma-ranges marek.vasut
2019-08-16 13:23   ` Simon Horman
2019-08-16 13:28     ` Marek Vasut
2019-08-16 13:38       ` Simon Horman
2019-08-16 17:41         ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-21 10:18       ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-26 18:03         ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-26 20:36           ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-26 21:06             ` Andrew Murray
2019-11-06 23:37             ` Marek Vasut
2019-11-07 14:19               ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-16 15:00   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-16 15:10     ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 15:26       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-16 15:29         ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 16:18           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-16 18:12             ` Rob Herring
2019-10-16 18:17               ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 20:25                 ` Rob Herring
2019-10-16 21:15                   ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 22:26                     ` Rob Herring
2019-10-16 22:33                       ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-17  7:06                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-17 10:55                           ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-17 13:06                             ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2019-10-17 14:00                               ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-17 14:36                                 ` Rob Herring
2019-10-17 15:01                                   ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18  9:53                                     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-18 12:22                                       ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18 12:53                                         ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 14:26                                           ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18 15:44                                             ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 16:44                                               ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18 17:35                                                 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 18:44                                                   ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-21  8:32                                                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-18 10:06                         ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-18 10:17                           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-18 11:40                             ` Andrew Murray
2019-08-09 17:57 ` [PATCH V3 3/3] PCI: rcar: Recalculate inbound range alignment for each controller entry marek.vasut
2019-10-21 10:39   ` Andrew Murray
2019-08-16 10:52 ` [PATCH V3 1/3] PCI: rcar: Move the inbound index check Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-08-16 10:59   ` Marek Vasut
2019-08-16 11:10     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-15 20:14 ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-21 10:11 ` Andrew Murray

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=ccf8a4f9-1758-bafc-797c-714f06810db3@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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

Linux-PCI Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/0 linux-pci/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-pci linux-pci/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci \
		linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-pci

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-pci


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git