On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 05:48:36PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 4/4/19 11:28 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:33:07AM +0200, marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The MSI message address in the RC address space can be 64 bit. The
> >> R-Car PCIe RC supports such a 64bit MSI message address as well.
> >> The code currently uses virt_to_phys(__get_free_pages()) to obtain
> >> a reserved page for the MSI message address, and the return value
> >> of which can be a 64 bit physical address on 64 bit system.
> >>
> >> However, the driver only programs PCIEMSIALR register with the bottom
> >> 32 bits of the virt_to_phys(__get_free_pages()) return value and does
> >> not program the top 32 bits into PCIEMSIAUR, but rather programs the
> >> PCIEMSIAUR register with 0x0. This worked fine on older 32 bit R-Car
> >> SoCs, however may fail on new 64 bit R-Car SoCs.
> >>
> >> Since from a PCIe controller perspective, an inbound MSI is a memory
> >> write to a special address (in case of this controller, defined by
> >> the value in PCIEMSIAUR:PCIEMSIALR), which triggers an interrupt, but
> >> never hits the DRAM _and_ because allocation of an MSI by a PCIe card
> >> driver obtains the MSI message address by reading PCIEMSIAUR:PCIEMSIALR
> >> in rcar_msi_setup_irqs(), incorrectly programmed PCIEMSIAUR cannot
> >> cause memory corruption or other issues.
> >>
> >> There is however the possibility that if virt_to_phys(__get_free_pages())
> >> returned address above the 32bit boundary _and_ PCIEMSIAUR was programmed
> >> to 0x0 _and_ if the system had physical RAM at the address matching the
> >> value of PCIEMSIALR, a PCIe card driver could allocate a buffer with a
> >> physical address matching the value of PCIEMSIALR and a remote write to
> >> such a buffer by a PCIe card would trigger a spurious MSI.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> To: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> V2: - s/it's/its/ in commit message
> >> - Add R-B from Geert
> >> V3: - Reworded commit message and thus dropped Geerts R-B
> >> V4: - Add Geert's R-B again
> >> V5: - Rebase on next/master 20190401
> >> - Use {lower,upper}_32_bits() instead of >> 32
> >
> > If that's the only reason you resent this series I will add the
> > lower_32_bits() code myself.
>
> Yes, you asked me to resend the whole series after the bot complained.
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2019-April/059428.html
> > Please do not rebase on top of next, apply code on top of a fixed -rc1
> > (we are currently using v5.1-rc1) and if there are dependencies on code
> > already queued do let us know, we will handle conflicts in next
> > ourselves.
>
> So do you want me to resend this one more time ?
No, in the message above I wanted to say I would make the update
myself.
Regardless, please never send patches aimed at the PCI tree
on top on -next.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
