Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries: add lparctl driver for platform-specific functions

Michal Suchánek [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:59:56AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:

quoted

Michal Suchánek [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 02:14:21PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:

quoted

Laurent Dufour [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Le 30/07/2022 à 02:04, Nathan Lynch a écrit :

quoted

+static long lparctl_get_sysparm(struct lparctl_get_system_parameter __user *argp)
+{
+	struct lparctl_get_system_parameter *gsp;
+	long ret;
+	int fwrc;
+
+	/*
+	 * Special case to allow user space to probe the command.
+	 */
+	if (argp == NULL)
+		return 0;
+
+	gsp = memdup_user(argp, sizeof(*gsp));
+	if (IS_ERR(gsp)) {
+		ret = PTR_ERR(gsp);
+		goto err_return;
+	}
+
+	ret = -EINVAL;
+	if (gsp->rtas_status != 0)
+		goto err_free;
+
+	do {
+		static_assert(sizeof(gsp->data) <= sizeof(rtas_data_buf));
+
+		spin_lock(&rtas_data_buf_lock);
+		memset(rtas_data_buf, 0, sizeof(rtas_data_buf));
+		memcpy(rtas_data_buf, gsp->data, sizeof(gsp->data));
+		fwrc = rtas_call(rtas_token("ibm,get-system-parameter"), 3, 1,
+				 NULL, gsp->token, __pa(rtas_data_buf),
+				 sizeof(gsp->data));
+		if (fwrc == 0)
+			memcpy(gsp->data, rtas_data_buf, sizeof(gsp->data));

May be the amount of data copied out to the user space could be
gsp->length. This would prevent copying 4K bytes all the time.

In a more general way, the size of the RTAS buffer is quite big, and I'm
wondering if all the data need to be copied back and forth to the kernel.

Unless there are a high frequency of calls this doesn't make sense, and
keeping the code simple might be the best way. Otherwise limiting the bytes
copied could help a bit.

This is not intended to be a high-bandwidth interface and I don't think
there's much of a performance concern here, so I'd rather just keep the
copy sizes involved constant.

But that's absolutely horrible!

?

quoted

The user wants the VPD data, all of it. And you only give one page with
this interface.

The code here is for system parameters, which have a known maximum size,
unlike VPD. There's no code for VPD retrieval in this patch.

But we do need to support the calls that return multiple pages of data.

If the new driver supports only the simple calls it's a failure.

Michal, will you please moderate your tone? I think you can communicate
your concerns without calling my work "absolutely horrible" or a
"failure". Thanks.

Anyway, of course I intend to support the more complex calls, but
supporting the simple calls actually unbreaks a lot of stuff.

quoted

But I'm happy to constructively discuss how a VPD ioctl interface should
work.

quoted

Worse, the call is not reentrant so you need to lock against other users
calling the call while the current caller is retrieving the inidividual
pagaes.

You could do that per process, but then processes with userspace
threading would want the data as well so you would have to save the
arguments of the last call, and compare to arguments of any subsequent
call to determine if you can let it pass or block.

And when you do all that there will be a process that retrieves a couple
of pages and goes out for lunch or loses interest completely, blocking
out everyone from accessing the interface at all.

Right, the ibm,get-vpd RTAS function is tricky to expose to user space.

It needs to be called repeatedly until all data has been returned, 4KB
at a time.

Only one ibm,get-vpd sequence can be in progress at any time. If an
ibm,get-vpd sequence is begun while another sequence is already
outstanding, the first one is invalidated -- I would guess -1 or some
other error is returned on its next call.

So a new system-call level interface for VPD retrieval probably should
not expose the repeating sequence-based nature of the RTAS function to
user space, to prevent concurrent clients from interfering with each
other. That implies that the kernel should buffer the VPD results
internally; at least that's the only idea I've had so far. Open to
other suggestions.

It can save the data to an user-supplied buffer until all data is
transferred or the buffer space runs out.

Yes, of course, thanks. Assuming user space can discover the appropriate
buffer size, which should be possible.