Re: [PATCH 03/11] PCI: of_property: Sanitize 32 bit PCI address parsed from DT

Andrea della Porta
2024-09-27T06:48:17Z

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
> # <convert to PCI address space>
> 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