xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] intel/pinctrl: check capability offset is between MMIO region
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:06:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YFx80wYt/KcHanC7@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YFxN9hlt0FbOVqML@Air-de-Roger>

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:46:46AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 06:57:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 04:13:59PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:55:15PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:58:07PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > Unfortunately it does not expose PCI configuration space.
> > > 
> > > Are those regions supposed to be marked as reserved in the memory map,
> > > or that's left to the discretion of the hardware vendor?
> > 
> > I didn't get. The OS doesn't see them and an internal backbone simply drops any
> > IO access to that region.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the above reply. My question was whether the
> MMIO regions used by the pinctrl device (as fetched from the ACPI DSDT
> table) are supposed belong to regions marked as RESERVED in the
> firmware memory map (ie: either the e820 or the EFI one).

I don't actually know. I guess it should be done in order to have ACPI device
a possibility to claim the resource.

> > > > > Doing something like pci_device_is_present would require a register
> > > > > that we know will never return ~0 unless the device is not present. As
> > > > > said above, maybe we could use REVID to that end?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, that's good, see above.
> > > > 
> > > > WRT capabilities, if we crash we will see the report immediately on the
> > > > hardware which has such an issue. (It's quite unlikely we will ever have one,
> > > > that's why I consider it's not critical)
> > > 
> > > I would rather prefer to not crash, because I think the kernel should
> > > only resort to crashing when there's no alternative, and here it's
> > > perfectly fine to just print an error message and don't load the
> > > driver.
> > 
> > Are we speaking about real hardware that has an issue? I eagerly want to know
> > what is that beast.
> 
> OK, I'm not going to resend this anymore. I'm happy with just getting
> the first patch in.
> 
> I think you trust the hardware more that I would do, and I also think
> the check added here is very minimal an unintrusive and serves as a
> way to sanitize the data fetched from the hardware in order to prevent
> a kernel page fault if such data turns out to be wrong.
> 
> Taking a reactive approach of requiring a broken piece of hardware to
> exist in order to sanitize a fetched value seems too risky. I could
> add a WARN_ON or similar if you want some kind of splat that's very
> noticeable when this goes wrong but that doesn't end up in a fatal
> kernel page fault.

You found the issue anyway as long as you had a crash, so current code already
proved that it does it work perfectly.

Since I know what hardware this driver is for, I can assure you, that it will
be quite unlikely to have wrong data in the capability register. The data sheet
is crystal clear about the register's contents: on real hardware it must be
present and be set to a sane value.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko




      reply	other threads:[~2021-03-25 12:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-24 12:31 Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-24 12:58 ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-03-24 13:55   ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-24 14:22     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-03-24 15:13       ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-24 16:57         ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-03-25  8:46           ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-25 12:06             ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]

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=YFx80wYt/KcHanC7@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RESEND] intel/pinctrl: check capability offset is between MMIO region' \
    /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

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).