Re: [PATCH] ACPI/IORT: Fix iort_node_get_id() mapping entries indexing

[Hanjun Guo]

Hi Sinan,

On 2017/1/8 5:09, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/5/2017 1:29 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > Commit 618f535a6062 ("ACPI/IORT: Add single mapping function")
> > introduced a function (iort_node_get_id()) to retrieve ids for IORT
> > named components.
> >
> > iort_node_get_id() takes an index as input to refer to a specific
> > mapping entry in the mapping array to retrieve the id at a specific
> > index provided the index is below the total mapping count; currently the
> > index is used to retrieve the mapping value from the correct entry but
> > not to dereference the correct entry while retrieving the mapping
> > output_reference (ie IORT parent pointer), which consequently always
> > resolves to the output_reference of the first entry in the mapping
> > array.
> >
> > Update the map array entry pointer computation in iort_node_get_id() to
> > take into account the index value, fixing the issue.
> >
> > Fixes: 618f535a6062 ("ACPI/IORT: Add single mapping function")
> > Reported-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Nate Watterson <nwatters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > index e0d2e6e..ba156c5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ struct acpi_iort_node *iort_node_get_id(struct acpi_iort_node *node,
> >  		return NULL;
> >
> >  	map = ACPI_ADD_PTR(struct acpi_iort_id_mapping, node,
> > -			   node->mapping_offset);
> > +			   node->mapping_offset + index * sizeof(*map));
>
> What does this give us that the previous code didn't do?

Fir example, if you have multi mappings ids under platform device:

|-------------|
|  SMMU  2    |<-------
|-------------|       |
                      |
                      |
|-------------|       |
|  SMMU 1     |<----  |
|-------------|    |  |
                   |  |
                   |  |
|-------------|    |  |
|  platform   |    |  |
|  device     |    |  |
|-------------|    |  |
| stream id   |    |  |
| 1           |    |  |
| parent------|----|  |
|-------------|       |
|  stream id  |       |
|  2          |       |
|  parent-----|-------|
|-------------|

For now, we just use the first entry in the mapping entry to get
the parent, and always point to the same parent, as above, we will
always map to SMMU 1 even if you connect to different SMMUs. (Although
we may don't have such device topology yet)


> You are using map as a pointer and returning the offset of the first map entry above
> and then accessing the map at the indexed offset with map[index]
>
> The new code is using map as a plain pointer, calculating the pointer location with ACPI_ADD_PTR
> instead and then collecting the output parameter with map->output_base.
>
> >  	/* Firmware bug! */
> >  	if (!map->output_reference) {
> > @@ -348,10 +348,10 @@ struct acpi_iort_node *iort_node_get_id(struct acpi_iort_node *node,
> >  	if (!(IORT_TYPE_MASK(parent->type) & type_mask))
> >  		return NULL;
> >
> > -	if (map[index].flags & ACPI_IORT_ID_SINGLE_MAPPING) {
> > +	if (map->flags & ACPI_IORT_ID_SINGLE_MAPPING) {
> >  		if (node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_NAMED_COMPONENT ||
> >  		    node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_PCI_ROOT_COMPLEX) {
> > -			*id_out = map[index].output_base;
> > +			*id_out = map->output_base;
>
> You are claiming that the existing code is collecting the output parameter from the first mapping.
> I don't see this happening above.
>
> What am I missing?

It's not about the output id but it's about the parent returned
by this function, it always return the first entry's parent in the
mapping entry.

> >  			return parent;
> >  		}
> >  	}
>
> If we are just doing a housekeeping, this is fine. I couldn't see an actual bug getting fixed.

Although we may don't have such use cases for now, but I think we
need to prepare for it, it worth a bugfix I think :)

Thanks
Hanjun