[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: LPAE: use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long in outercache hooks
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 02:30:56PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2020/12/26 20:13, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 07:44:58PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> The outercache of some Hisilicon SOCs support physical addresses wider
> >> than 32-bits. The unsigned long datatype is not sufficient for mapping
> >> physical addresses >= 4GB. The commit ad6b9c9d78b9 ("ARM: 6671/1: LPAE:
> >> use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long in outercache functions") has
> >> already modified the outercache functions. But the parameters of the
> >> outercache hooks are not changed. This patch use phys_addr_t instead of
> >> unsigned long in outercache hooks: inv_range, clean_range, flush_range.
> >>
> >> To ensure the outercache that does not support LPAE works properly, do
> >> cast phys_addr_t to unsigned long by adding a middle-tier function.
> >
> > Please don't do that. The cast can be done inside the L2 functions
> > themselves without needing all these additional functions.
> OK. At first, I wanted to fit in like this:
> -static void l2c220_inv_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> +static void l2c220_inv_range(phys_addr_t lpae_start, phys_addr_t lpae_end)
> {
> + unsigned long start = lpae_start;
> + unsigned long end = lpae_end;

It sounds like there should be a "but..." clause here. This is exactly
what I'm suggesting you should be doing. Currently, there's a silent
narrowing cast in every single caller of the outer_.*_range() functions
and you're only moving it from the callsites to inside the called

> > We probably ought to also add some protection against addresses > 4GB,
> > although these are hot paths, so we don't want to add tests in these
> > functions. Maybe instead checking whether the system has memory above
> > 4GB while the L2 cache is being initialised would be a good idea?
> I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand what you meant. Currently, the
> biggest problem is the compilation problem. The sizeof(long) may be
> 32, and the 64-bit physical address cannot be transferred from outcache
> functions to outcache hooks.

What I mean is that we really ought to warn if the L2C310 code tries to
initialise on a system where memory is above 4GB. However, it's very
unlikely that such a system exists, so it's probably fine not implement
a check, but it just feels fragile to be truncating the 64-bit address
to 32-bit on a kernel that _could_ support higher addresses, even though
that's exactly what is happening today (kind of by accident - I don't
think anyone realised.)

RMK's Patch system:
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-29 11:53    [W:0.045 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site