Hi, Mark:
2017-12-08 18:21 GMT+08:00 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0800, Greentime Hu wrote:
>> From: Greentime Hu <greentime@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch adds VDSO support. The VDSO code is currently used for
>> sys_rt_sigreturn() and optimised gettimeofday() (using the SoC timer counter).
>
> [...]
>
>> +static int grab_timer_node_info(void)
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *timer_node;
>> +
>> + timer_node = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "timer");
>
> Please use a compatible string, rather than matching the timer by name.
>
> It's plausible that you have multiple nodes called "timer" in the DT,
> under different parent nodes, and this might not be the device you
> think it is. I see your dt in patch 24 has two timer nodes.
>
> It would be best if your clocksource driver exposed some stuct that you
> looked at here, so that you're guaranteed to user the same device.
We'd like to use "timer" here because there are 2 different timer IPs
and we are sure that they won't be in the same SoC.
We think this implementation in VDSO should be platform independent to
get cycle-count register.
Our customer or other SoC provider who can use "timer" and define
cycle-count-offset or cycle-count-down then we can get the correct
cycle-count.
We sent atcpit100 patch last time along with our arch, however we'd
like to send it to its sub system this time and my colleague is still
working on it.
He may send the timer patch next week.
>> + of_property_read_u32(timer_node, "cycle-count-offset",
>> + &vdso_data->cycle_count_offset);
>> + vdso_data->cycle_count_down =
>> + of_property_read_bool(timer_node, "cycle-count-down");
>
> ... and then you'd only need to parse these in one place, too.
>
> IIUC these are proeprties for the atcpit device, which has no
> documentation or driver in this series.
>
> So I'm rather confused as to what's going on here.
>
These properties are defined in dts which can provide the cycle count
register offset address of that timer, so that we can get cycle-count.
>> + return of_address_to_resource(timer_node, 0, &timer_res);
>> +}
>
>> +int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm, int uses_interp)
>> +{
>
>> + /*Map timer to user space */
>> + vdso_base += PAGE_SIZE;
>> + prot = __pgprot(_PAGE_V | _PAGE_M_UR_KR | _PAGE_D |
>> + _PAGE_G | _PAGE_C_DEV);
>> + ret = io_remap_pfn_range(vma, vdso_base, timer_res.start >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>> + PAGE_SIZE, prot);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto up_fail;
>
> Maybe this is fine, but it looks a bit suspicious.
>
> Is it safe to map IO memory to a userspace process like this?
>
> In general that isn't safe, since userspace could access other registers
> (if those exist), perform accesses that change the state of hardware, or
> make unsupported access types (e.g. unaligned, atomic) that result in
> errors the kernel can't handle.
>
> Does none of that apply here?
We only provide read permission to this page so hareware state won't
be chagned. It will trigger exception if we try to write.
We will check about the alignment/atomic issue of this region.
Thanks.
