[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/3] lib: logic_pio: Reject accesses to unregistered CPU MMIO regions

Hi Bjorn,

>> There were many different names along the way to this support merged, and I
>> think that the naming became almost irrelevant in the end.
> Yep, Arnd is right. The "PIO" name contributed a little to my
> confusion, but I think the bigger piece was that I read the "indirect
> PIO addresses" above as being parallel to the "CPU MMIO regions"
> below, when in fact, they are not. The arguments to logic_inb() are
> always port addresses, never CPU MMIO addresses, but in some cases
> logic_inb() internally references a CPU MMIO region that corresponds
> to the port address.


> Possible commit log text:
> The logic_{in,out}*() functions access two regions of I/O port
> addresses:
> 1) [0, MMIO_UPPER_LIMIT): these are assumed to be
> LOGIC_PIO_CPU_MMIO regions, where a bridge converts CPU loads
> and stores to MMIO space on its primary side into I/O port
> transactions on its secondary side.
> 2) [MMIO_UPPER_LIMIT, IO_SPACE_LIMIT): these are assumed to be
> LOGIC_PIO_INDIRECT regions, where we verify that the region was
> registered by logic_pio_register_range() before calling the
> logic_pio_host_ops functions to perform the access.
> Previously there was no requirement that accesses to the
> LOGIC_PIO_CPU_MMIO area matched anything registered by
> logic_pio_register_range(), and accesses to unregistered I/O ports
> could cause exceptions like the one below.
> Verify that accesses to ports in the LOGIC_PIO_CPU_MMIO area
> correspond to registered ranges. Accesses to ports outside those
> registered ranges fail (logic_in*() returns ~0 data and logic_out*()
> does nothing).
> This matches the x86 behavior where in*() returns ~0 if no device
> responds, and out*() is dropped if no device claims it.

It reads quite well so I can incorporate it. I'd still like to mention
about request_{muxed_}region(), and how this does not protect against
accesses to unregistered regions.

>>> 1) The simple "bridge converts CPU MMIO space to PCI I/O port space"
>>> flavor is essentially identical to what ia64 (and probably other
>>> architectures) does. This should really be combined somehow.
>> Maybe. For ia64, it seems to have some "platform" versions of IO port
>> accessors, and then also accessors need a fence barrier. I'm not sure how
>> well that would fit with logical PIO. It would need further analysis.
> Right. That shouldn't be part of this series, but I think it would be
> nice to someday unify the ia64 add_io_space() path with the
> pci_register_io_range() path. There might have to be ia64-specific
> accessors at the bottom for the fences, but I think the top side could
> be unified because it's conceptually the same thing -- an MMIO region
> that is translated by a bridge to an I/O port region.

Yes, it would be good to move any arch-specific port IO function to this
common framework. To mention it again, what's under
CONFIG_PPC_INDIRECT_PIO seems an obvious candidate.

>>> 2) If you made a default set of logic_pio_host_ops that merely did
>>> loads/stores and maybe added a couple fields in the struct
>>> logic_pio_hwaddr, I bet you could unify the two kinds so
>>> logic_inb() would look something like this:
>> Yeah, I did consider this. We do not provide host operators for PCI MMIO
>> ranges. We could simply provide regular versions of inb et al for this. A
>> small obstacle for this is that we redefine inb et al, so would need
>> "direct" versions also. It would be strange.
> Yeah, just a thought, maybe it wouldn't work out.
>>>> Any failed checks silently return.
>>> I *think* what you're doing here is making inb/outb/etc work the same
>>> as on x86, i.e., if no device responds to an inb(), the caller gets
>>> ~0, and if no device claims an outb() the data gets dropped.
>> Correct, but with a caveat: when you say no device responds, this means that
>> - for arm64 case - no PCI MMIO region is mapped.
> Yep. I was describing the x86 behavior, where we don't do any mapping
> and all we can say is that no device responded.
> Bjorn


> .

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-13 17:07    [W:0.078 / U:1.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site