On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 13:32, Lorenzo Pieralisi
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:14:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:14:11PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

The IORT specification [0] (Section 3, table 4, page 9) defines the
'Number of IDs' as 'The number of IDs in the range minus one'.

However, the IORT ID mapping function iort_id_map() treats the 'Number
of IDs' field as if it were the full IDs mapping count, with the
following check in place to detect out of boundary input IDs:

InputID >= Input base + Number of IDs

This check is flawed in that it considers the 'Number of IDs' field as
the full number of IDs mapping and disregards the 'minus one' from
the IDs count.

The correct check in iort_id_map() should be implemented as:

InputID > Input base + Number of IDs

this implements the specification correctly but unfortunately it breaks
existing firmwares that erroneously set the 'Number of IDs' as the full
IDs mapping count rather than IDs mapping count minus one.

e.g.

PCI hostbridge mapping entry 1:
Input base:  0x1000
ID Count:    0x100
Output base: 0x1000
Output reference: 0xC4  //ITS reference

PCI hostbridge mapping entry 2:
Input base:  0x1100
ID Count:    0x100
Output base: 0x2000
Output reference: 0xD4  //ITS reference

Two mapping entries which the second entry's Input base = the first
entry's Input base + ID count, so for InputID 0x1100 and with the
correct InputID check in place in iort_id_map() the kernel would map
the InputID to ITS 0xC4 not 0xD4 as it would be expected.

Therefore, to keep supporting existing flawed firmwares, introduce a
workaround that instructs the kernel to use the old InputID range check
logic in iort_id_map(), so that we can support both firmwares written
with the flawed 'Number of IDs' logic and the correct one as defined in
the specifications.

[0]: http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0049d/DEN0049D_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf

Reported-by: Pankaj Bansal <redacted>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20191215203303.29811-1-pankaj.bansal@nxp.com/ (local)
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <redacted>
Cc: Pankaj Bansal <redacted>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <redacted>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
---

I'm a bit confused about the SoB chain here and which tree this is
targetting.

Lorenzo?

Hi Will,

sorry about that. It targets arm64 - previously wasn't addressed
to you and Catalin:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1577708824-4873-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com/ (local)

I rewrote the commit log and asked Hanjun to repost it to target an arm64
merge.

Having said that, this patch makes me nervous, it can break on platforms
that have non-compliant firmware, I wonder whether it is best to leave
it in -next for a whole cycle (I can send it to -next) to catch any
fall-out rather than targeting v5.6 given that technically is _not_ a
fix (we may even have to revert it - it requires coverage on all ARM64
ACPI systems).

What do you think ?

I just ran into this while playing with the LX2160 I received this week.

I wonder if it would be better to detect the failure case dynamically,
rather than having these hardcoded quirks. It should be rather
straightforward to detect overlaps at the edges of these multi-range
mappings, in which case we could just let the spurious one (living at
the end of the region) be superseded by the correct one (living at the
start of the next region).

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel