lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1 0/1] Fix kernel panic caused by device ID duplication presented to the IOMMU
From
Date
Hi Tomasz,

On 19/12/17 15:13, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> Here is my lspci output of ThunderX2 for which I am observing kernel panic coming from
> SMMUv3 driver -> arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent() -> BUG_ON(ste_live):
>
> # lspci -vt
> -[0000:00]-+-00.0-[01-1f]--+ [...]
> + [...]
> \-00.0-[1e-1f]----00.0-[1f]----00.0 ASPEED Technology, Inc. ASPEED Graphics Family
>
> ASP device -> 1f:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ASPEED Technology, Inc. ASPEED Graphics Family
> PCI-Express to PCI/PCI-X Bridge -> 1e:00.0 PCI bridge: ASPEED Technology, Inc. AST1150 PCI-to-PCI Bridge
>
> While setting up ASP device SID in IORT dirver:
> iort_iommu_configure() -> pci_for_each_dma_alias()
> we need to walk up and iterate over each device which alias transaction from
> downstream devices.
>
> AST device (1f:00.0) gets BDF=0x1f00 and corresponding SID=0x1f00 from IORT.
> Bridge (1e:00.0) is the first alias. Following PCI Express to PCI/PCI-X Bridge
> spec: PCIe-to-PCI/X bridges alias transactions from downstream devices using
> the subordinate bus number. For bridge (1e:00.0), the subordinate is equal
> to 0x1f. This gives BDF=0x1f00 and SID=1f00 which is the same as downstream
> device. So it is possible to have two identical SIDs. The question is what we
> should do about such case. Presented patch prevents from registering the same
> ID so that SMMUv3 is not complaining later on.

Ooh, subtle :( There is logic in arm_smmu_attach_device() to tolerate
grouped devices aliasing to the same ID, but I guess I overlooked the
distinction of a device sharing an alias ID with itself. I'm not sure
I really like trying to work around this in generic code, since
fwspec->ids is essentially opaque data in a driver-specific format - in
theory a driver is free to encode a single logical ID into multiple
fwspec elements (I think I did that in an early draft of SMMUv2 SMR
support), at which point this approach might corrupt things massively.

Does the (untested) diff below suffice?

Robin.

----->8-----diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
index f122071688fd..d8a730d83401 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -1731,7 +1731,7 @@ static __le64 *arm_smmu_get_step_for_sid(struct
arm_smmu_device *smmu, u32 sid)

static void arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec)
{
- int i;
+ int i, j;
struct arm_smmu_master_data *master = fwspec->iommu_priv;
struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = master->smmu;

@@ -1739,6 +1739,13 @@ static void arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(struct
iommu_fwspec *fwspec)
u32 sid = fwspec->ids[i];
__le64 *step = arm_smmu_get_step_for_sid(smmu, sid);

+ /* Bridged PCI devices may end up with duplicated IDs */
+ for (j = 0; j < i; j++)
+ if (fwspec->ids[j] == sid)
+ break;
+ if (j < i)
+ continue;
+
arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(smmu, sid, step, &master->ste);
}
}
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-19 17:35    [W:0.129 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site