lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: eliminate a potential memory corruption on Hi16xx soc
From
Date
On 15/10/18 18:21, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:36:16PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> ITS translation register map:
>> 0x0000-0x003C Reserved
>> 0x0040 GITS_TRANSLATER
>> 0x0044-0xFFFC Reserved
>>
>> The standard GITS_TRANSLATER register in ITS is only 4 bytes, but Hisilicon
>> expands the next 4 bytes to carry some IMPDEF information. That means, 8 bytes
>> data will be written to MSIAddress each time.
>>
>> MSIAddr: |----4bytes----|----4bytes----|
>> | MSIData | IMPDEF |
>>
>> There is no problem for ITS, because the next 4 bytes space is reserved in ITS.
>> But it will overwrite the 4 bytes memory following "sync_count". It's very
>> luckly that the previous and the next neighbour of "sync_count" are both aligned
>> by 8 bytes, so no problem is met now.
>>
>> It's good to explicitly add a workaround:
>> 1. Add gcc __attribute__((aligned(8))) to make sure that "sync_count" is always
>> aligned by 8 bytes.
>> 2. Add a "u64" union member to make sure the 4 bytes padding is always exist.
>>
>> There is no functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index 5059d09..a07bc0d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -586,7 +586,10 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>
>> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg strtab_cfg;
>>
>> + union {
>> + u64 padding; /* workaround for Hisilicon */
>> u32 sync_count;
>> + } __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>
> Won't this already be aligned by the ABI?
>
> Anyway, you'll need to swizzle things for big-endian, I suspect. Maybe you
> can do something clever like making sync_count an array of two elements
> and determining the offset based on the endianness. Or just keep it simple
> like we do for things like struct qrwlock and struct qspinlock and use
> #ifdefs.

I don't think so - the CPUs should only ever be making word accesses to
the u32 member, while the SMMU expects to be writing little-endian data
to an ITS, so AFAICS the data word will always be at the lower address
either way.

Although now that it's come up, the pre-existing issue of whether the
byte order *within* that u32 comes out correct after its round-trip
through the SMMU is something I need to run away and hurriedly think
about...

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-16 11:48    [W:0.017 / U:2.956 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site