Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2019-01-23 18:43:55
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:36 AM Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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;
Ok, strange. So what *used* to happen is that the memcpy_fromio() would just expand as a "memcpy()", and in this case, gcc would then inline the memcpy(). In fact, gcc does it as a 4-byte access and a two-byte access from what I can tell. Which is actually exactly the same as memcpy_fromio() should do, just using a different code sequence.
memcpy_fromio(&buf[6], &priv->rsp[6], expected - 6);
This one gets turned into an out-of-line "memcpy()" in the old world order, which depending on size will do different things, but might be a "rep movsb". Or it might be the software expansion that does overlapping accesses and/or backwards copies. In the new world order, it's the "memcpy_fromio()" that willdo first 4-byte accesses for the main bulk of the copy, and then end up with a two-byte and single-byte move to pad out the end.
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.
The first one seems to do the same thing now as it used to do, so I
don't *think* it should have mattered.
The second one looks like it is unaligned (offset 6) and doing the
4-byte io reads would fail if that device needs aligned accesses. The
old memcpy() *might* have done it with a "rep movsb" that would just
work (?).
Linus