Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] PCI: dwc: Fix MSI page leakage in suspend/resume | From | Robin Murphy <> | Date | Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:49:59 +0100 |
| |
On 2020-10-14 15:15, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:37 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote: >> >> On 2020-10-09 08:55, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >>> Currently, dw_pcie_msi_init() allocates and maps page for msi, then >>> program the PCIE_MSI_ADDR_LO and PCIE_MSI_ADDR_HI. The Root Complex >>> may lose power during suspend-to-RAM, so when we resume, we want to >>> redo the latter but not the former. If designware based driver (for >>> example, pcie-tegra194.c) calls dw_pcie_msi_init() in resume path, the >>> msi page will be leaked. >>> >>> As pointed out by Rob and Ard, there's no need to allocate a page for >>> the MSI address, we could use an address in the driver data. >>> >>> To avoid map the MSI msg again during resume, we move the map MSI msg >>> from dw_pcie_msi_init() to dw_pcie_host_init(). >> >> You should move the unmap there as well. As soon as you know what the >> relevant address would be if you *were* to do DMA to this location, then >> the exercise is complete. Leaving it mapped for the lifetime of the >> device in order to do not-DMA to it seems questionable (and represents >> technically incorrect API usage without at least a sync_for_cpu call >> before any other access to the data). >> >> Another point of note is that using streaming DMA mappings at all is a >> bit fragile (regardless of this change). If the host controller itself >> has a limited DMA mask relative to physical memory (which integrators >> still seem to keep doing...) then you could end up punching your MSI >> hole right in the middle of the SWIOTLB bounce buffer, where it's then >> almost *guaranteed* to interfere with real DMA :( > > Couldn't that happen with the current code too? alloc_page() isn't > guaranteed to be DMA'able, right?
Indeed that's what I meant by "regardless of this change".
>> If no DWC users have that problem and the current code is working well >> enough, then I see little reason not to make this partucular change to >> tidy up the implementation, just bear in mind that there's always the >> possibility of having to come back and change it yet again in future to >> make it more robust. I had it in mind that this trick was done with a >> coherent DMA allocation, which would be safe from addressing problems >> but would need to be kept around for the lifetime of the device, but >> maybe that was a different driver :/ > > Well, we're wasting 4K or 64K of memory and then leaking it is the > main reason to change it. > > We just need any address that's not memory which PCI could access. We > could possibly just take the end of (outbound) PCI memory space. Note > that the DWC driver never sets up inbound translations, so it's all > 1:1 mapping (though upstream could have some translation).
Right, this patch is undeniably a better implementation of the existing approach, I just felt it worth pointing out that that approach itself has fundamental flaws which may or may not be relevant to some current and/or future users. I know for a fact that there are platforms which cripple their PCIe host bridge to 32-bit physical addressing but support having RAM above that; I don't *think* any of the ones I know of are using the dw_pcie driver, but hey, how much do I know? ;)
Robin.
| |