From: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michal Suchanek <hramrach@gmail.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: "Marcel Selhorst" <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
"Ashley Lai" <ashleydlai@gmail.com>,
"Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
"Michal Suchánek" <msuchanek@suse.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:34:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d2da4b82-9686-187c-c514-96a506e994cc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tw8hw4k7.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
On 01/29/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>>> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>>>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The structure is defined as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>>>>>> u8 valid;
>>>>>> u8 msg;
>>>>>> __be16 len;
>>>>>> __be32 data;
>>>>>> __be64 reserved;
>>>>>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> initialized as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
>>>>>> u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
>>>>>> crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and submitted with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
>>>>>> cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
>>>>>
>>>>> These should be be64_to_cpu() here. The underlying hcall made by
>>>>> ibmvtpm_send_crq() requires parameters to be in cpu endian unlike the
>>>>> RTAS interface which requires data in BE.
>>>>
>>>> Hrm... an hcall takes register arguments. Register arguments don't have
>>>> an endianness.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>>>>
>>>> So we have two things at play here:
>>>>
>>>> - The >8-bit fields should be laid out BE in the memory image
>>>> - That whole 128-bit structure should be loaded into 2 64-bit
>>>> registers MSB first.
>>>>
>>>> So the "double" swap is somewhat needed. The uglyness comes from the
>>>> passing-by-register of the h-call but it should work.
>>>>
>>>> That said, be64_to_cpup(buf) and be64_to_cpup(buf+1) might give you
>>>> better result (though recent gcc's might not make a difference).
>>>
>>> If this should work then the below case that swaps the fields separately is
>>> broken.
>>>
>>> Anyway, structures have no endianess so when they start with a byte they
>>> start with that byte no matter the host endian.
>>> crq.valid is the first byte always. And then each field is to be swapped
>>> separately.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, bitfields are part of an integer and the field should be
>>> swapped as part of the integer.
>>>
>>> That is,
>>> #define CRQ_VALID ((buf[0] >> 56) & 0xff)
>>> CRQ_VALID is part of an integer in buf and would be laid out differently
>>> on start or end depending on the host being BE or LE.
>>>
>>> And the question is what the PAPR actually defines because both ways are
>>> used in the code. You can describe an in-memory layout either way.
>>
>> Byte | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Word0 | Valid | Type | Length | Data
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Word1 | Reserved
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The following definition looks to match:
>>
>> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
>> u8 valid;
>> u8 msg;
>> __be16 len;
>> __be32 data;
>> __be64 reserved;
>> } __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
>
> Well it's a partial match.
>
> Your layout above doesn't define which byte of Length or Data is the MSB
> or LSB. So going by that we still don't know the endianness of either
I should have been explicit that PAPR uses Big Endian bit and byte
numbering throughout the spec unless otherwise noted.
-Tyrel
> field.
>
> cheers
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-30 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-26 20:22 ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency Michal Suchánek
2017-01-26 22:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-01-26 22:43 ` Michal Suchanek
2017-01-26 22:58 ` Ashley Lai
2017-02-02 4:40 ` Vicky
2017-02-02 10:55 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-02 11:29 ` Michal Suchánek
2017-02-02 15:17 ` David Laight
2017-01-27 1:42 ` Tyrel Datwyler
2017-01-27 1:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-01-27 9:03 ` Michal Suchanek
2017-01-27 21:19 ` Tyrel Datwyler
2017-01-30 4:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-01-30 20:34 ` Tyrel Datwyler [this message]
2017-01-31 8:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-01-27 18:02 ` Tyrel Datwyler
2017-01-27 19:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-01-27 20:32 ` Tyrel Datwyler
2017-01-28 0:35 ` msuchanek
2017-01-28 4:28 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-01-30 14:42 ` David Laight
2017-01-27 11:18 ` David Laight
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=d2da4b82-9686-187c-c514-96a506e994cc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ashleydlai@gmail.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hramrach@gmail.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=msuchanek@suse.de \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).