[PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: trusted_foundations: do not use naked function

[stefan@agner.ch (Stefan Agner)]

On 27.03.2018 14:16, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 27.03.2018 14:54, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 26/03/18 22:20, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> On 25.03.2018 21:09, Stefan Agner wrote:
>>>> As documented in GCC naked functions should only use Basic asm
>>>> syntax. The Extended asm or mixture of Basic asm and "C" code is
>>>> not guaranteed. Currently this works because it was hard coded
>>>> to follow and check GCC behavior for arguments and register
>>>> placement.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore with clang using parameters in Extended asm in a
>>>> naked function is not supported:
>>>> ?? arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c:47:10: error: parameter
>>>> ?????????? references not allowed in naked functions
>>>> ???????????????? : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
>>>> ??????????????????????? ^
>>>>
>>>> Use a regular function to be more portable. This aligns also with
>>>> the other smc call implementations e.g. in qcom_scm-32.c and
>>>> bcm_kona_smc.c.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Keep stmfd/ldmfd to avoid potential ABI issues
>>>>
>>>> ? arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>>>> ? 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>>> b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>>> index 3fb1b5a1dce9..689e6565abfc 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>>> @@ -31,21 +31,25 @@
>>>> ? ? static unsigned long cpu_boot_addr;
>>>> ? -static void __naked tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>>>> +static void tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>>>> ? {
>>>> +??? register u32 r0 asm("r0") = type;
>>>> +??? register u32 r1 asm("r1") = arg1;
>>>> +??? register u32 r2 asm("r2") = arg2;
>>>> +
>>>> ????? asm volatile(
>>>> ????????? ".arch_extension??? sec\n\t"
>>>> -??????? "stmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11, lr}\n\t"
>>>> +??????? "stmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
>>>> ????????? __asmeq("%0", "r0")
>>>> ????????? __asmeq("%1", "r1")
>>>> ????????? __asmeq("%2", "r2")
>>>> ????????? "mov??? r3, #0\n\t"
>>>> ????????? "mov??? r4, #0\n\t"
>>>> ????????? "smc??? #0\n\t"
>>>> -??????? "ldmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11, pc}"
>>>> +??????? "ldmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
>>>> ????????? :
>>>> -??????? : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
>>>> -??????? : "memory");
>>>> +??????? : "r" (r0), "r" (r1), "r" (r2)
>>>> +??????? : "memory", "r3", "r12", "lr");
>>>
>>> Although seems "lr" won't be affected by SMC invocation because it should be
>>> banked and hence could be omitted entirely from the code. Maybe somebody could
>>> confirm this.
>> Strictly per the letter of the architecture, the SMC could be trapped to Hyp
>> mode, and a hypervisor might clobber LR_usr in the process of forwarding the
>> call to the firmware secure monitor (since Hyp doesn't have a banked LR of its
>> own). Admittedly there are probably no real systems with the appropriate
>> hardware/software combination to hit that, but on the other hand if this gets
>> inlined where the compiler has already created a stack frame then an LR clobber
>> is essentially free, so I reckon we're better off keeping it for reassurance.
>> This isn't exactly a critical fast path anyway.
> 
> Okay, thank you for the clarification.

So it seems this change is fine?

Stephen, you picked up changes for this driver before, is this patch
going through your tree?

--
Stefan