Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932269AbcJIJjE (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Oct 2016 05:39:04 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:62042 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753461AbcJIJjC (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Oct 2016 05:39:02 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,465,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1051374759" Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 12:38:18 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] tpm_crb: expand struct crb_control_area to struct crb_regs Message-ID: <20161009093818.GG31891@intel.com> References: <1475972112-2819-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1475972112-2819-2-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20161009014256.GA8210@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161009014256.GA8210@obsidianresearch.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1982 Lines: 54 On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 07:42:56PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 03:15:09AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > + ctrl = crb_map_res(dev, priv, &io_res, buf->control_address, > > + sizeof(struct crb_regs) - > > + offsetof(struct crb_regs, ctrl_req)); > > + if (IS_ERR(ctrl)) > > + return PTR_ERR(ctrl); > > + > > + /* The control area always overrlaps IO memory mapped from the ACPI > > + * object with CRB start only devices. Thus, this is perfectly safe. > > + */ > > + priv->regs = (void *)((unsigned long)ctrl - > > + offsetof(struct crb_regs, ctrl_req)); > > Hum. No, this makes bad assumptions about the structure of iomapping. > > The map itself needs to be done with the adjustment: > > ctrl = crb_map_res(dev, priv, &io_res, buf->control_address - > offsetof(struct crb_regs, ctrl_req), > sizeof(struct crb_regs)); That would be wrong address for the control area as it does not start from the beginning of CRB registers. > .. and nothing actually proves that control_address follows anything > in the driver, so this seems like a terrifying blind assumption, but > everything about the iomap in this ACPI binding seems totally bonkers > so that is in good company I guess. There are basically two kinds of CRB devices in the wild: 1. ACPI start devices that use DMA 2. CRB MMIO devices For 1 you always iomap control area. For 2 the ACPI object given buffer covers the control area. I think the crb_map_io and crb_map_res are too generic. Better way to do things would be to validate that assumptions for these two cases hold. > .. and the comment says this only holds for 'crb start only' devices, > but the code doesn't actually act differently based on what sort of > device we have.. > > Your commit message also seems to imply the new registers are only on > newer hardware, but nothing seems to check for that before acessing > them? Confusing. That's why there's this thing called RFC :) > Jason /Jarkko