Thread (30 messages) 30 messages, 6 authors, 2019-02-04

Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <hidden>
Date: 2019-01-23 15:36:46
Also in: linux-integrity, lkml

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 07:26:42AM +1300, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:29 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
Fails on commit 170d13ca3a2fdaaa0283399247631b76b441cca2. Still works on
preceding commit a959dc88f9c8900296ccf13e2f3e1cbc555a8917.
This changes the IO access pattern in memcpy_to/fromio.. Presumably
CRB HW doesn't like the new 4 byte move? Swap each one in crb to
memcpy to confirm..

If the HW requires particular access patterns you can't use
memcpy_to/fromio
Did not have time to look at the commit at all but your deduction
is correct. I know it without testing.

Memory controller will feed 1's on unaligned read from IO memory,
and as we can see from the TPM header, this change causes two of
those:
Funky. But how did it work before then?

The new memcpy_fromio() is designed to have _predictable_ access
patterns. Not necessarily the best, but at least consistent.

Prevously, we used whatever random "memcpy()" implementation we
happened to pick, which *could* be aligned (particularly "rep movsb" -
absolutely horrible performance for MMIO, but by doing IO one byte at
a time it was certainly aligned ;), but most of our x86 memcpy
implementations don't actually try all that hard to align the source.
And the manual version will actually copy things *backwards* for some
cases.

Is it just that this particular hardware always happened to trigger
the ERMS case (ie "rep movsb")?
This is the particular snippet in question:

memcpy_fromio(buf, priv->rsp, 6);
expected = be32_to_cpup((__be32 *) &buf[2]);
if (expected > count || expected < 6)
	return -EIO;

memcpy_fromio(&buf[6], &priv->rsp[6], expected - 6);

I guess it did in the first memcpy_fromio operation since it is less
than a quad word, right? Not sure why the 2nd memcpy_fromio() operation
has worked, though.
Anyway, Jason is correct that if a device has particular IO pattern
requirements, you shouldn't use "memcpy_fromio()" and friends, but
it's interesting how it apparently *happened* to work before.

             Linus
Sure, I'll prepare a fix ASAP.

/Jarkko
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help