On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:48 PM Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:26:34AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 11:28 PM Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:34:16PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > We have several SCM calls that require passing buffers to the TrustZone
> > > > on top of the SMC core which allocates memory for calls that require
> > > > more than 4 arguments.
> > > >
> > > > Currently every user does their own thing which leads to code
> > > > duplication. Many users call dma_alloc_coherent() for every call which
> > > > is terribly unperformant (speed- and size-wise).
> > > >
> > > > Provide a set of library functions for creating and managing pool of
> > > > memory which is suitable for sharing with the TrustZone, that is:
> > > > page-aligned, contiguous and non-cachable as well as provides a way of
> > > > mapping of kernel virtual addresses to physical space.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > I got these warnings with this series:
> > >
> > > ahalaney@fedora ~/git/linux-next (git)-[7204cc6c3d73] % ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- make W=1 C=2 drivers/firmware/qcom/
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:137: warning: Function parameter or member 'size' not described in 'qcom_tzmem_pool_new'
> > > CHECK drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: expected void **slot
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: got void [noderef] __rcu **
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: expected void **slot
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: got void [noderef] __rcu **
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: expected void [noderef] __rcu **slot
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: got void **slot
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: expected void **slot
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:204:17: got void [noderef] __rcu **
> > > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c:339:13: warning: context imbalance in 'qcom_tzmem_to_phys' - wrong count at exit
> >
> > I fixed the other ones but this one I think comes from CHECK not
> > dealing correctly with the spinlock guard.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > All are confusing me, size seems described, I don't know much about
> > > radix tree usage / rcu, and the locking in qcom_tzmem_to_phys seems sane
> > > to me but I'm still grappling with the new syntax.
> > >
> > > For the one address space one, I _think_ maybe a diff like this is in
> > > order?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c
> > > index b3137844fe43..5b409615198d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c
> > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ void qcom_tzmem_pool_free(struct qcom_tzmem_pool *pool)
> > > struct qcom_tzmem_chunk *chunk;
> > > struct radix_tree_iter iter;
> > > bool non_empty = false;
> > > - void **slot;
> > > + void __rcu **slot;
> > >
> > > if (!pool)
> > > return;
> > > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ void qcom_tzmem_pool_free(struct qcom_tzmem_pool *pool)
> > >
> > > scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &qcom_tzmem_chunks_lock) {
> > > radix_tree_for_each_slot(slot, &qcom_tzmem_chunks, &iter, 0) {
> > > - chunk = *slot;
> > > + chunk = radix_tree_deref_slot_protected(slot, &qcom_tzmem_chunks_lock);
> >
> > We need to keep the lock taken for the duration of the looping so we
> > can use the regular radix_tree_deref_slot().
>
> IIUC, using the protected version is preferable since you already
> have the lock in hand: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/RCU/whatisRCU.html#id2
>
> Quote:
> The variant rcu_dereference_protected() can be used outside of an RCU
> read-side critical section as long as the usage is protected by locks
> acquired by the update-side code. This variant avoids the lockdep warning
> that would happen when using (for example) rcu_dereference() without
> rcu_read_lock() protection. Using rcu_dereference_protected() also has
> the advantage of permitting compiler optimizations that rcu_dereference()
> must prohibit. The rcu_dereference_protected() variant takes a lockdep
> expression to indicate which locks must be acquired by the caller.
> If the indicated protection is not provided, a lockdep splat is emitted.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
I should have RTFM I guess. I assumed that the _protected() variant
just takes the indicated lock.
Thanks
Bart
>
>
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > >
> > > if (chunk->owner == pool)
> > > non_empty = true;
> > >
> > >
> > > Still planning on reviewing/testing the rest, but got tripped up there
> > > so thought I'd highlight it before doing the rest.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> >
>
