From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f66.google.com (mail-ej1-f66.google.com [209.85.218.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 742ED6BFC0 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 06:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.66 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727419699; cv=none; b=ZRyt6fzA4uZuyoFAIImMUjJtPZx08jaqP1+ieGLgXGp7yJFozF+/YE/NHeCdUnYi7C+/J338fYAUUO+vJBF+AF2pODLQ6FP+frEqd2HeHalztsyNudKSxr9kKWm6QtHCITQTrUiOuKkdC7Ka+CABH3zNHeATHhjWwDVmH1wkouA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727419699; c=relaxed/simple; bh=seoZJVVkae3s3IXICNZ9fMVHO4f0TO87iEurq5MP/xM=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VMqANpkM6NXSJ1lk1P7euxZClwvdL5tcxoAQ5wJw7ewgysMb3s6VK3munM1aYQA6aE+j92TpZTji8Z4wGERr/mpBY+j47PRwLlxqUg7+oBIUykxQGgHfeU6IQ/+TdULvetI9AyV4LcSrgkwrcdEga+F9Kbg3SN2YywoIpJAcN6M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=QcRqs906; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.66 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="QcRqs906" Received: by mail-ej1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8d56155f51so205390466b.2 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 23:48:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1727419696; x=1728024496; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vBJMtcLG7aQHBsMfuf0SnmVlujb00WcTg7o4/+0tb1U=; b=QcRqs906kEG4AOJd4M8ypDrdj2F7Nmar84H0DYraYjLszLCJ5eQcHrp9r3IRQKUsGU 8Kp/MBCZx6IDm6LcAyBnCM9tf/lzbqp/0fgWz49c0aB9KaF9lj/JnKCBeTbbZ/4N0/ne o8+nWNeLPRaAZkq4stpvTHPU9CP7yDs7407FDueyaGYH09XAIs51p0VsaQRefuR+z5ti 34apjIEAnL5QrI7enG5CLXENbyyD3/ANx0J/76IKxekr5PzUJecsLkv4erB2lfa5YF/Z q/8GwsBenU/tt9NgSC84WyrpWiQ7MAGaO+gPtSG1LaGvwbDuXY5LCpq3nbAYMf1qU1b2 K1YA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1727419696; x=1728024496; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=vBJMtcLG7aQHBsMfuf0SnmVlujb00WcTg7o4/+0tb1U=; b=OTL3B7lc06Q/LXbuZut2ehqHX93YEW10XwgT+AKudQG1jjzNy76zuDCAwxJ5fw0PpZ SN6EIeP6cWPd4FtPF/PIJQGWggFMgrG67n4+o8spaga3jiDMbERmchHoHjiWas1YsBF1 hkYxK6ckSHp7SmbxgfxQKWabg9QBH61sG/yGVuIJi1FcYgiJO/gCZXavFYrKuPc+y0sz AMeqFteajib+jeejs0OIWPGQkXGT/QdYlXA/Q/3Gwn71cFz+h/MPxlTdudYk/I9wdkk9 KVAhVKbRKU5EF7Ll04dacZZUgaRWx73yqjJviv2F2O147EiTS4atWMal4dpJh1mu4QKS Mm6A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWUslxIJZTHHknArfbybGAwsFuljbv28+w74vQVY0PVU4+dMLYpYzuE+vl42W8rx0+bE634SgcWHFxu@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywh6r/580p+Ltt9fQVaRqY4DF6kKLCB7r5xlsm55pwGvW+MbZLU amXobENY8ppM7zzWchsq3l9BJf7fIclw8Yc/DOtSrVM5N6utKrv1iSv76jWOQD0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGLDHBeNa6D6RZfpkGvMPVnCQ8ZzsxDN0YoVSie0mpImcNcS8+a9hjT0lBohBj3W/lmYOd11w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c113:b0:a8a:7d13:297e with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a93c4c284cfmr178037066b.55.1727419695753; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 23:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (host-79-32-222-228.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.32.222.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-a93c2997e64sm87199066b.190.2024.09.26.23.48.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Sep 2024 23:48:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrea della Porta X-Google-Original-From: Andrea della Porta Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 08:48:28 +0200 To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Andrea della Porta , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Florian Fainelli , Broadcom internal kernel review list , Linus Walleij , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Derek Kiernan , Dragan Cvetic , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nicolas Ferre , Claudiu Beznea , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Saravana Kannan , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones , Andrew Lunn , Stefan Wahren , Lizhi Hou Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] PCI: of_property: Sanitize 32 bit PCI address parsed from DT Message-ID: References: <20240905201656.GA391855@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240905201656.GA391855@bhelgaas> Hi Bjorn, On 15:16 Thu 05 Sep , Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > [+cc Lizhi] > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 06:43:35PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > On 17:26 Tue 03 Sep , Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > > > On 10:24 Wed 21 Aug , Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 04:36:05PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > > > > > The of_pci_set_address() function parses devicetree PCI range > > > > > > specifier assuming the address is 'sanitized' at the origin, > > > > > > i.e. without checking whether the incoming address is 32 or 64 > > > > > > bit has specified in the flags. In this way an address with no > > > > > > OF_PCI_ADDR_SPACE_MEM64 set in the flags could leak through and > > > > > > the upper 32 bits of the address will be set too, and this > > > > > > violates the PCI specs stating that in 32 bit address the upper > > > > > > bit should be zero. > > > > > > > > I don't understand this code, so I'm probably missing something. It > > > > > looks like the interesting path here is: > > > > > > > > > > of_pci_prop_ranges > > > > > res = &pdev->resource[...]; > > > > > for (j = 0; j < num; j++) { > > > > > val64 = res[j].start; > > > > > of_pci_set_address(..., val64, 0, flags, false); > > > > > + if (OF_PCI_ADDR_SPACE_MEM64) > > > > > + prop[1] = upper_32_bits(val64); > > > > > + else > > > > > + prop[1] = 0; > > ... > > > However, the CPU physical address space and the PCI bus address are > > > not the same. Generic code paths should account for that different by > > > applying an offset (the offset will be zero on many platforms where > > > CPU and PCI bus addresses *look* the same). > > > > > > So a generic code path like of_pci_prop_ranges() that basically copies > > > a CPU physical address to a PCI bus address looks broken to me. > > > > Hmmm, I'd say that a translation from one bus type to the other is > > going on nonetheless, and this is done in the current upstream function > > as well. This patch of course does not add the translation (which is > > already in place), just to do it avoiding generating inconsistent address. > > I think I was looking at this backwards. I assumed we were *parsing" > a "ranges" property, but I think in fact we're *building* a "ranges" > property to describe an existing PCI device (either a PCI-to-PCI > bridge or an endpoint). For such devices there is no address > translation. > > Any address translation would only occur at a PCI host bridge that has > CPU address space on the upstream side and PCI address space on the > downstream side. > > Since (IIUC), we're building "ranges" for a device in the interior of > a PCI hierarchy where address translation doesn't happen, I think both > the parent and child addresses in "ranges" should be in the PCI > address space. > > But right now, I think they're both in the CPU address space, and we > basically do this: > > of_pci_prop_ranges(struct pci_dev *pdev, ...) > res = &pdev->resource[...]; > for (j = 0; j < num; j++) { # iterate through BARs or windows > val64 = res[j].start; # CPU physical address > # > of_pci_set_address(..., rp[i].parent_addr, val64, ...) > rp[i].parent_addr = val64 > if (pci_is_bridge(pdev)) > memcpy(rp[i].child_addr, rp[i].parent_addr) > else > rp[i].child_addr[0] = j # child addr unset/unused > > Here "res" is a PCI BAR or bridge window, and it contains CPU physical > addresses, so "val64" is a CPU physical address. It looks to me like > we should convert to a PCI bus address at the point noted above, based > on any translation described by the PCI host bridge. That *should* > naturally result in a 32-bit value if OF_PCI_ADDR_SPACE_MEM64 is not > set. That's exactly the point, ecxept that right now a 64 bit address would "unnaturally" pass through even if OF_PCI_ADDR_SPACE_MEM64 is not set. Hence the purpose of this patch. Many thanks, Andrea > > > > Maybe my expectation of this being described in DT is mistaken. > > > > Not sure what you mean here, the address being translated are coming from > > DT, in fact they are described by "ranges" properties. > > Right, for my own future reference since I couldn't find a generic > description of "ranges" in Documentation/devicetree/: > > [1] https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#ranges