Re: runtime check for omap-aes bus access permission (was: Re: 3.13-rc3 (commit 7ce93f3) breaks Nokia N900 DT boot)

Tony Lindgren
2015-06-01T20:52:31Z

* Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@gmail.com> [150601 13:34]:
> On 1 June 2015 at 19:58, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> > I think these kernels are missing the configuration for l3-noc
> > driver?
>
> Yup. Since I'm pretty sure I have all the necessary info I was hoping
> look into that... somewhere in my copious spare time...
>
> > I tried it on omap4 that has l3-noc configured, and it first produces
> > "Unhandled fault: external abort on non-linefetch (0x1818) at 0xb6fd7000",
>
> (Though making a patch to fix that annoyingly wrong and useless
> message is higher on my list of priorities)
>
> > and the L3 interrupt only after that. So yeah, you're right, we can't
> > use the interrupts here. I somehow remembered we'd get only the L3
> > interrupt if configured.
>
> The bus error is not influenced by L3 error reporting config afaik,
> and it will always win from the irq: even though the irq is almost
> certainly asserted first, it can't be taken until the load/store
> instruction completes, and then the fault will take precedence.
>
> While implementing L3 error reporting in my forth system I ran into a
> tricky scenario though: it turns out that if an irq occurs while the
> cpu is waiting for instruction fetch, it does allow the irq to be
> taken. The interrupted fetch is abandoned and any bus error it may
> have produced is ignored since exception entry/exit is an implicit
> instruction sync barrier. On return it is simply refetched...
>
> Hence, the result from attempting to execute code from an invalid address:
> fetching from [invalid]
> irq entry (LR=[invalid])
> L3 error displayed
> irq exit
> fetching from [invalid]
> irq entry (LR=[invalid])
> L3 error displayed
> irq exit
> fetching from [invalid]
> ...
> (repeat until watchdog expires)

OK that must be the case I've seen then. Probably that happens
when a device is not clocked.

> Anyhow, so we still have the puzzling fact that apparently neither of
> us was expecting device memory to use a strongly-ordered mapping,
> getting a bus error on a write (outside MPUSS itself) shows that it
> does.

Hmm well it should be just MT_DEVICE for anything Linux ioremaps..
Care to verify that from a device driver that does ioremap on it
first?

> I've tried to read arch/arm/mm/mmu.c to find out why, but so far I'm
> feeling hopelessly lost there... (the multitude of ARM architecture
> versions/flavors supported aren't helping.)

Heh yeah too much hardware churn going on :)

Regards,

Tony