Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Do resource size checks based on SMMU

[Robert Richter]

On 08.05.17 16:20:49, Linu Cherian wrote:
> 
> On Mon May 08, 2017 at 12:09:32PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 08.05.17 15:14:37, Linu Cherian wrote:
> > > On Sat May 06, 2017 at 12:18:44AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > On 05.05.17 17:38:06, Geetha sowjanya wrote:
> > > > > From: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > With implementations supporting only page 0 register space,
> > > > > resource size can be 64k as well and hence perform size checks
> > > > > based on SMMU option PAGE0_REGS_ONLY.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For this, arm_smmu_device_dt_probe/acpi_probe has been moved before
> > > > > platform_get_resource call, so that SMMU options are set beforehand.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by:  Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by:  Geetha Sowjanya <geethasowjanya.akula@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > > > > index 107b4a6..f027676 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > > > > @@ -2672,6 +2672,14 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > > > >  	return ret;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +static unsigned long arm_smmu_resource_size(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	if (ARM_SMMU_PAGE0_REGS_ONLY(smmu))
> > > > > +		return SZ_64K;
> > > > > +	else
> > > > > +		return SZ_128K;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > 
> > > > I think this can be dropped. See below.
> > > > 
> > > > >  static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	int irq, ret;
> > > > > @@ -2688,9 +2696,17 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  	smmu->dev = dev;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	if (dev->of_node) {
> > > > > +		ret = arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(pdev, smmu);
> > > > > +	} else {
> > > > > +		ret = arm_smmu_device_acpi_probe(pdev, smmu);
> > > > > +		if (ret == -ENODEV)
> > > > > +			return ret;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	/* Base address */
> > > > >  	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > > > > -	if (resource_size(res) + 1 < SZ_128K) {
> > > > > +	if (resource_size(res) + 1 < arm_smmu_resource_size(smmu)) {
> > > > >  		dev_err(dev, "MMIO region too small (%pr)\n", res);
> > > > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > > > >  	}
> > > > 
> > > > Why not just do the follwoing here:
> > > > 
> > > >  	/* Base address */
> > > >  	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > > >  	if (resource_size(res) + 1 < arm_smmu_resource_size(smmu)) {
> > > >  		dev_err(dev, "MMIO region too small (%pr)\n", res);
> > > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  	ioaddr = res->start;
> > > > 
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Override the size, for Cavium ThunderX2 implementation
> > > > +	 * which doesn't support the page 1 SMMU register space.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (smmu->options & ARM_SMMU_OPT_PAGE0_REGS_ONLY)
> > > > +		res->end = res->size + SZ_64K -1;
> > > > +
> > > >  	smmu->base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> > > >  	if (IS_ERR(smmu->base))
> > > >  		return PTR_ERR(smmu->base);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This might not work, since platform_device_add is being called from
> > > iort.c before the res->end gets fixed up here. 
> > 
> > It should. You added it with 128k and you get it back with
> > platform_get_resource(), but before ioremap you shrink the size to
> > 64k.
> > 
> 
> The smmu devices are located at 64k offsets and not at 128k
> offsets and hence this would be result in resource conflict during
> platform_add_device ?

Right, we have overlapping io spaces then. So we need to change also
iort.c for the fix.

-Robert