* [PATCH v3 1/2] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Don't reassign mpss region on shutdown [not found] <20200204062641.393949-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> @ 2020-02-04 6:26 ` Bjorn Andersson 2020-02-10 23:05 ` Mathieu Poirier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2020-02-04 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bjorn Andersson, Ohad Ben-Cohen Cc: linux-arm-msm, linux-remoteproc, linux-kernel, Sibi Sankar, Jeffrey Hugo, stable Trying to reclaim mpss memory while the mba is not running causes the system to crash on devices with security fuses blown, so leave it assigned to the remote on shutdown and recover it on a subsequent boot. Fixes: 6c5a9dc2481b ("remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> --- Changes since v2: - The assignment of mpss memory back to Linux is rejected in the coredump case on production devices, so check the return value of q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership() before attempting to memcpy() the data. drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c index 471128a2e723..25c03a26bf88 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c @@ -887,11 +887,6 @@ static void q6v5_mba_reclaim(struct q6v5 *qproc) writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG); } - ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, - false, qproc->mpss_phys, - qproc->mpss_size); - WARN_ON(ret); - q6v5_reset_assert(qproc); q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->reset_clks, @@ -981,6 +976,10 @@ static int q6v5_mpss_load(struct q6v5 *qproc) max_addr = ALIGN(phdr->p_paddr + phdr->p_memsz, SZ_4K); } + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ + q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, false, + qproc->mpss_phys, qproc->mpss_size); + mpss_reloc = relocate ? min_addr : qproc->mpss_phys; qproc->mpss_reloc = mpss_reloc; /* Load firmware segments */ @@ -1070,8 +1069,16 @@ static void qcom_q6v5_dump_segment(struct rproc *rproc, void *ptr = rproc_da_to_va(rproc, segment->da, segment->size); /* Unlock mba before copying segments */ - if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) + if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) { ret = q6v5_mba_load(qproc); + if (!ret) { + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ + ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, + false, + qproc->mpss_phys, + qproc->mpss_size); + } + } if (!ptr || ret) memset(dest, 0xff, segment->size); @@ -1123,10 +1130,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc) return 0; reclaim_mpss: - xfermemop_ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, - false, qproc->mpss_phys, - qproc->mpss_size); - WARN_ON(xfermemop_ret); q6v5_mba_reclaim(qproc); return ret; -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Don't reassign mpss region on shutdown 2020-02-04 6:26 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Don't reassign mpss region on shutdown Bjorn Andersson @ 2020-02-10 23:05 ` Mathieu Poirier 2020-02-11 1:16 ` Bjorn Andersson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Poirier @ 2020-02-10 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen, linux-arm-msm, linux-remoteproc, linux-kernel, Sibi Sankar, Jeffrey Hugo, stable Hi Bjorn, On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:26:40PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > Trying to reclaim mpss memory while the mba is not running causes the > system to crash on devices with security fuses blown, so leave it > assigned to the remote on shutdown and recover it on a subsequent boot. > > Fixes: 6c5a9dc2481b ("remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > --- > > Changes since v2: > - The assignment of mpss memory back to Linux is rejected in the coredump case > on production devices, so check the return value of q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership() > before attempting to memcpy() the data. > > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > index 471128a2e723..25c03a26bf88 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > @@ -887,11 +887,6 @@ static void q6v5_mba_reclaim(struct q6v5 *qproc) > writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG); > } > > - ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > - false, qproc->mpss_phys, > - qproc->mpss_size); > - WARN_ON(ret); > - > q6v5_reset_assert(qproc); > > q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->reset_clks, > @@ -981,6 +976,10 @@ static int q6v5_mpss_load(struct q6v5 *qproc) > max_addr = ALIGN(phdr->p_paddr + phdr->p_memsz, SZ_4K); > } > > + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ > + q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, false, > + qproc->mpss_phys, qproc->mpss_size); Would you mind adding more chatter here, something like what is mentioned in the changelog? That way I anyone trying to review this code doesn't have to suffer through the same mental gymnastic. > + > mpss_reloc = relocate ? min_addr : qproc->mpss_phys; > qproc->mpss_reloc = mpss_reloc; > /* Load firmware segments */ > @@ -1070,8 +1069,16 @@ static void qcom_q6v5_dump_segment(struct rproc *rproc, > void *ptr = rproc_da_to_va(rproc, segment->da, segment->size); > > /* Unlock mba before copying segments */ > - if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) > + if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) { > ret = q6v5_mba_load(qproc); > + if (!ret) { > + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ > + ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > + false, > + qproc->mpss_phys, > + qproc->mpss_size); > + } I'm a bit puzzled here as to why a different reclaim strategy is needed. It is clear to me that if q6v5_mba_load() returns 0 then the MBA is running and we can safely reclaim ownership of the memory. But is it absolutely needed when we know that 1) the MCU has crashed and 2) said memory will be reclaimed in q6v5_mpss_load()? If so I think an explanation in the code is needed. I also assume there is no way to know if the mba is running, hence not taking any chance. If that's the case it would be nice to add that to the comment in q6v5_mpss_load(). Thanks, Mathieu > + } > > if (!ptr || ret) > memset(dest, 0xff, segment->size); > @@ -1123,10 +1130,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc) > return 0; > > reclaim_mpss: > - xfermemop_ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > - false, qproc->mpss_phys, > - qproc->mpss_size); > - WARN_ON(xfermemop_ret); > q6v5_mba_reclaim(qproc); > > return ret; > -- > 2.23.0 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Don't reassign mpss region on shutdown 2020-02-10 23:05 ` Mathieu Poirier @ 2020-02-11 1:16 ` Bjorn Andersson 2020-02-11 18:42 ` Mathieu Poirier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2020-02-11 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Poirier Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen, linux-arm-msm, linux-remoteproc, linux-kernel, Sibi Sankar, Jeffrey Hugo, stable On Mon 10 Feb 15:05 PST 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:26:40PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > Trying to reclaim mpss memory while the mba is not running causes the > > system to crash on devices with security fuses blown, so leave it > > assigned to the remote on shutdown and recover it on a subsequent boot. > > > > Fixes: 6c5a9dc2481b ("remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch") > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > > --- > > > > Changes since v2: > > - The assignment of mpss memory back to Linux is rejected in the coredump case > > on production devices, so check the return value of q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership() > > before attempting to memcpy() the data. > > > > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > > index 471128a2e723..25c03a26bf88 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > > @@ -887,11 +887,6 @@ static void q6v5_mba_reclaim(struct q6v5 *qproc) > > writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG); > > } > > > > - ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > > - false, qproc->mpss_phys, > > - qproc->mpss_size); > > - WARN_ON(ret); > > - > > q6v5_reset_assert(qproc); > > > > q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->reset_clks, > > @@ -981,6 +976,10 @@ static int q6v5_mpss_load(struct q6v5 *qproc) > > max_addr = ALIGN(phdr->p_paddr + phdr->p_memsz, SZ_4K); > > } > > > > + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ > > + q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, false, > > + qproc->mpss_phys, qproc->mpss_size); > > Would you mind adding more chatter here, something like what is mentioned in the > changelog? That way I anyone trying to review this code doesn't have to suffer > through the same mental gymnastic. > Sure thing, as this patch shows this dynamic wasn't clear - and this patch is based on my observations. With it we no longer crash the entire system by hitting a security violation during a crash, but there's still some details that I'm uncertain about. > > + > > mpss_reloc = relocate ? min_addr : qproc->mpss_phys; > > qproc->mpss_reloc = mpss_reloc; > > /* Load firmware segments */ > > @@ -1070,8 +1069,16 @@ static void qcom_q6v5_dump_segment(struct rproc *rproc, > > void *ptr = rproc_da_to_va(rproc, segment->da, segment->size); > > > > /* Unlock mba before copying segments */ > > - if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) > > + if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) { > > ret = q6v5_mba_load(qproc); > > + if (!ret) { > > + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ > > + ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > > + false, > > + qproc->mpss_phys, > > + qproc->mpss_size); > > + } > > I'm a bit puzzled here as to why a different reclaim strategy is needed. It is > clear to me that if q6v5_mba_load() returns 0 then the MBA is running and we can > safely reclaim ownership of the memory. But is it absolutely needed when we > know that 1) the MCU has crashed and 2) said memory will be reclaimed in > q6v5_mpss_load()? > The ownership transfer here is a jump into secure world, which somehow together with the firmware running on the modem processor will update the access permissions for the mpss memory region. As we enter this function the recovery handling in the core has just stopped the remote processor, so we know it's off. As such we must first boot the remote processor again, in order to reclaim the access to the mpss memory region. New in this revision is the fact that this operation might actually be rejected (e.g. on end-user hardware). So we need to guard the memcpy below on either of these cases, as unless we've successfully booted the modem processor and gotten permission to read the mpss memory this operation will trigger a security violation and the device will reboot. > If so I think an explanation in the code is needed. > Makes sense, I will formulate above explanation into a comment. As well as review the other callers of q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(). > I also assume there is no way to know if the mba is running, hence not taking > any chance. If that's the case it would be nice to add that to the comment in > q6v5_mpss_load(). > We know that we enter q6v5_mpss_load() with the modem processor just booted, but the memory assignment is there to handle the case where the mpss memory region for some reason was left in the hands on the modem. I will have to do some more digging to figure out if this is a valid scenario or not. Thanks for your review Mathieu! Regards, Bjorn > Thanks, > Mathieu > > > + } > > > > if (!ptr || ret) > > memset(dest, 0xff, segment->size); > > @@ -1123,10 +1130,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > return 0; > > > > reclaim_mpss: > > - xfermemop_ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > > - false, qproc->mpss_phys, > > - qproc->mpss_size); > > - WARN_ON(xfermemop_ret); > > q6v5_mba_reclaim(qproc); > > > > return ret; > > -- > > 2.23.0 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Don't reassign mpss region on shutdown 2020-02-11 1:16 ` Bjorn Andersson @ 2020-02-11 18:42 ` Mathieu Poirier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Poirier @ 2020-02-11 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen, linux-arm-msm, linux-remoteproc, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Sibi Sankar, Jeffrey Hugo, # 4 . 7 On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 18:16, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon 10 Feb 15:05 PST 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:26:40PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > Trying to reclaim mpss memory while the mba is not running causes the > > > system to crash on devices with security fuses blown, so leave it > > > assigned to the remote on shutdown and recover it on a subsequent boot. > > > > > > Fixes: 6c5a9dc2481b ("remoteproc: qcom: Make secure world call for mem ownership switch") > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes since v2: > > > - The assignment of mpss memory back to Linux is rejected in the coredump case > > > on production devices, so check the return value of q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership() > > > before attempting to memcpy() the data. > > > > > > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > > > index 471128a2e723..25c03a26bf88 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > > > @@ -887,11 +887,6 @@ static void q6v5_mba_reclaim(struct q6v5 *qproc) > > > writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG); > > > } > > > > > > - ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > > > - false, qproc->mpss_phys, > > > - qproc->mpss_size); > > > - WARN_ON(ret); > > > - > > > q6v5_reset_assert(qproc); > > > > > > q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->reset_clks, > > > @@ -981,6 +976,10 @@ static int q6v5_mpss_load(struct q6v5 *qproc) > > > max_addr = ALIGN(phdr->p_paddr + phdr->p_memsz, SZ_4K); > > > } > > > > > > + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ > > > + q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, false, > > > + qproc->mpss_phys, qproc->mpss_size); > > > > Would you mind adding more chatter here, something like what is mentioned in the > > changelog? That way I anyone trying to review this code doesn't have to suffer > > through the same mental gymnastic. > > > > Sure thing, as this patch shows this dynamic wasn't clear - and this > patch is based on my observations. With it we no longer crash the entire > system by hitting a security violation during a crash, but there's still > some details that I'm uncertain about. > > > > + > > > mpss_reloc = relocate ? min_addr : qproc->mpss_phys; > > > qproc->mpss_reloc = mpss_reloc; > > > /* Load firmware segments */ > > > @@ -1070,8 +1069,16 @@ static void qcom_q6v5_dump_segment(struct rproc *rproc, > > > void *ptr = rproc_da_to_va(rproc, segment->da, segment->size); > > > > > > /* Unlock mba before copying segments */ > > > - if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) > > > + if (!qproc->dump_mba_loaded) { > > > ret = q6v5_mba_load(qproc); > > > + if (!ret) { > > > + /* Try to reset ownership back to Linux */ > > > + ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > > > + false, > > > + qproc->mpss_phys, > > > + qproc->mpss_size); > > > + } > > > > I'm a bit puzzled here as to why a different reclaim strategy is needed. It is > > clear to me that if q6v5_mba_load() returns 0 then the MBA is running and we can > > safely reclaim ownership of the memory. But is it absolutely needed when we > > know that 1) the MCU has crashed and 2) said memory will be reclaimed in > > q6v5_mpss_load()? > > > > The ownership transfer here is a jump into secure world, which somehow > together with the firmware running on the modem processor will update > the access permissions for the mpss memory region. > > As we enter this function the recovery handling in the core has just > stopped the remote processor, so we know it's off. As such we must first > boot the remote processor again, in order to reclaim the access to the > mpss memory region. > > New in this revision is the fact that this operation might actually be > rejected (e.g. on end-user hardware). > > So we need to guard the memcpy below on either of these cases, as unless > we've successfully booted the modem processor and gotten permission to > read the mpss memory this operation will trigger a security violation > and the device will reboot. > > > If so I think an explanation in the code is needed. > > > > Makes sense, I will formulate above explanation into a comment. As well > as review the other callers of q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(). > > > I also assume there is no way to know if the mba is running, hence not taking > > any chance. If that's the case it would be nice to add that to the comment in > > q6v5_mpss_load(). > > > > We know that we enter q6v5_mpss_load() with the modem processor just > booted, but the memory assignment is there to handle the case where the > mpss memory region for some reason was left in the hands on the modem. > I will have to do some more digging to figure out if this is a valid > scenario or not. I'm really happy that you're also not sure about this patch... I spent hours (no joke) trying to figure out the workflow and logic of using q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership() and even then I'm ambivalent... Carefully understanding and documenting the scenarios we trying to handle will go a long way in terms of future stability of the system. > > Thanks for your review Mathieu! > > Regards, > Bjorn > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > > + } > > > > > > if (!ptr || ret) > > > memset(dest, 0xff, segment->size); > > > @@ -1123,10 +1130,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > > return 0; > > > > > > reclaim_mpss: > > > - xfermemop_ret = q6v5_xfer_mem_ownership(qproc, &qproc->mpss_perm, > > > - false, qproc->mpss_phys, > > > - qproc->mpss_size); > > > - WARN_ON(xfermemop_ret); > > > q6v5_mba_reclaim(qproc); > > > > > > return ret; > > > -- > > > 2.23.0 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-02-11 18:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20200204062641.393949-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
2020-02-04 6:26 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Don't reassign mpss region on shutdown Bjorn Andersson
2020-02-10 23:05 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-02-11 1:16 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-02-11 18:42 ` Mathieu Poirier
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).