drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 8 +++++--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
The commit ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
calculated the last index of L1 stream table by 1 << smmu->sid_bits. 1
is 32 bit value.
However some platforms, for example, AmpereOne, have 32-bit stream id size.
This resulted in ouf-of-bound shift. The disassembly of shift is:
ldr w2, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
mov w20, 1
lsl w20, w20, w2
According to ARM spec, if the registers are 32 bit, the instruction actually
does:
dest = src << (shift % 32)
So it actually shifted by zero bit.
This caused v6.12-rc1 failed to boot on AmpereOne and other platform [1].
UBSAN also reported:
UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c:3628:29
shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
CPU: 70 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1 #4
Hardware name: ZOLLNER SUNMOONLAKE/SunMoon Lake, BIOS 00.00. 2024-08-28 18:42:45 08/28/2024
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0xdc/0x140
show_stack+0x20/0x40
dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x80
dump_stack+0x18/0x28
ubsan_epilogue+0x10/0x48
__ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0xd8/0x1a0
arm_smmu_init_structures+0x374/0x3c8
arm_smmu_device_probe+0x208/0x600
platform_probe+0x70/0xe8
really_probe+0xc8/0x3a0
__driver_probe_device+0x84/0x160
driver_probe_device+0x44/0x130
__driver_attach+0xcc/0x208
bus_for_each_dev+0x84/0x100
driver_attach+0x2c/0x40
bus_add_driver+0x158/0x290
driver_register+0x70/0x138
__platform_driver_register+0x2c/0x40
arm_smmu_driver_init+0x28/0x40
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x318
do_initcalls+0x198/0x1e0
kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x1e8
kernel_init+0x28/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Using 64 bit immediate when doing shift can solve the problem. The
disassembly after the fix looks like:
ldr w20, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
mov x0, 1
lsl x0, x0, x20
There are a couple of problematic places, extracted the shift into a helper.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d4b53bbb-333a-45b9-9eb0-23ddd0820a14@arm.com/
Fixes: ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
Tested-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 8 +++++---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
v2: * Extracted the shift into a helper per Jason Gunthorpe.
* Covered more places per Nicolin Chen and Jason Gunthorpe.
* Used 1ULL instead of 1UL to guarantee 64 bit per Robin Murphy.
* Made the subject more general since this is not AmpereOne specific
problem per the report from James Morse.
* Collected t-b tag from James Morse.
* Added Fixes tag in commit log.
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
index 737c5b882355..4eafd9f04808 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -3624,8 +3624,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_2lvl(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
u32 l1size;
struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
+ unsigned int max_sid = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(smmu);
unsigned int last_sid_idx =
- arm_smmu_strtab_l1_idx((1 << smmu->sid_bits) - 1);
+ arm_smmu_strtab_l1_idx(max_sid - 1);
/* Calculate the L1 size, capped to the SIDSIZE. */
cfg->l2.num_l1_ents = min(last_sid_idx + 1, STRTAB_MAX_L1_ENTRIES);
@@ -3657,8 +3658,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
u32 size;
struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
+ unsigned int max_sid = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(smmu);
- size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
+ size = max_sid * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
cfg->linear.table = dmam_alloc_coherent(smmu->dev, size,
&cfg->linear.ste_dma,
GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -3668,7 +3670,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
size);
return -ENOMEM;
}
- cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
+ cfg->linear.num_ents = max_sid;
arm_smmu_init_initial_stes(cfg->linear.table, cfg->linear.num_ents);
return 0;
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
index 1e9952ca989f..f7e8465c629a 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
@@ -853,6 +853,11 @@ struct arm_smmu_master_domain {
ioasid_t ssid;
};
+static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
+{
+ return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
+}
+
static inline struct arm_smmu_domain *to_smmu_domain(struct iommu_domain *dom)
{
return container_of(dom, struct arm_smmu_domain, domain);
--
2.41.0On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> Using 64 bit immediate when doing shift can solve the problem. The
> disassembly after the fix looks like:
> ldr w20, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
> mov x0, 1
> lsl x0, x0, x20
>
> There are a couple of problematic places, extracted the shift into a helper.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d4b53bbb-333a-45b9-9eb0-23ddd0820a14@arm.com/
> Fixes: ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
> Tested-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 8 +++++---
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Jason
I think both v1 and v2 are missing iommu@lists.linux.dev in CC.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
> +}
> +
Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
Thanks
Nicolin
On 10/2/24 11:17 AM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> I think both v1 and v2 are missing iommu@lists.linux.dev in CC.
Will do it for the later revision.
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> +{
>> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
>> +}
>> +
> Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
fix it.
>
> Thanks
> Nicolin
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > > +{
> > > + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
>
> No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
> fix it.
Yea, and looks like we are going to do with:
static inline u64 arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
Then let's be careful at those return-value holders too:
-----------------------------------------------------------
static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
u32 size;
struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
^^^^
overflow?
[...]
cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
^^^^^^^^
This is u32
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
Nicolin
On 10/2/24 12:22 PM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>> Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
>> No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
>> fix it.
> Yea, and looks like we are going to do with:
> static inline u64 arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
Since this is an inline function, so the truncate should actually
happens when it is used. But anyway using the correct type does make the
code less confusing.
>
> Then let's be careful at those return-value holders too:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> u32 size;
> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>
> size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
> ^^^^
> overflow?
> [...]
> cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
> ^^^^^^^^
> This is u32
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks
> Nicolin
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:22:48PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
> >
> > No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
> > fix it.
>
> Yea, and looks like we are going to do with:
> static inline u64 arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>
> Then let's be careful at those return-value holders too:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> u32 size;
> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>
> size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
> ^^^^
> overflow?
> [...]
> cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
> ^^^^^^^^
> This is u32
> -----------------------------------------------------------
It would make some sense to have something like:
u64 size = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid()
/* Would require too much memory */
if (size > SZ_512M)
return -EINVAL;
Just to reject bad configuration rather than truncate the allocation
and overflow STE array memory or something. Having drivers be robust
to this kind of stuff is a confidential compute topic :\
Jason
On 10/2/24 12:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:22:48PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>> Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
>>> No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
>>> fix it.
>> Yea, and looks like we are going to do with:
>> static inline u64 arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>>
>> Then let's be careful at those return-value holders too:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> u32 size;
>> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>>
>> size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
>> ^^^^
>> overflow?
>> [...]
>> cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
>> ^^^^^^^^
>> This is u32
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> It would make some sense to have something like:
>
> u64 size = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid()
>
> /* Would require too much memory */
> if (size > SZ_512M)
> return -EINVAL;
Why not just check smmu->sid_bits?
For example,
if (smmu->sid_bits > 28)
return -EINVAL;
The check can happen before the shift.
>
> Just to reject bad configuration rather than truncate the allocation
> and overflow STE array memory or something. Having drivers be robust
> to this kind of stuff is a confidential compute topic :\
>
> Jason
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 01:05:08PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > It would make some sense to have something like: > > > > u64 size = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid() > > > > /* Would require too much memory */ > > if (size > SZ_512M) > > return -EINVAL; > > Why not just check smmu->sid_bits? > > For example, > > if (smmu->sid_bits > 28) > return -EINVAL; > > The check can happen before the shift. Sure, but IMHO it reads a bit better to check the size computed from the helper MAX_PAGE_ORDER is often 10, so kmalloc will always fail before we reach 28 bits of sid space. Jason
On 10/3/24 4:16 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 01:05:08PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: >>> It would make some sense to have something like: >>> >>> u64 size = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid() >>> >>> /* Would require too much memory */ >>> if (size > SZ_512M) >>> return -EINVAL; >> Why not just check smmu->sid_bits? >> >> For example, >> >> if (smmu->sid_bits > 28) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> The check can happen before the shift. > Sure, but IMHO it reads a bit better to check the size computed from > the helper > > MAX_PAGE_ORDER is often 10, so kmalloc will always fail before we > reach 28 bits of sid space. I'm wondering we may just use 31 instead of using some magic number: if (smmu->sid_bits > 31) return -EINVAL; If I understand correctly, the check is mainly used to avoid the u64 -> u32 overflow. This check guarantee no overflow. If some crazy hardware really requests that large memory, the allocation will fail. > > Jason
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > If I understand correctly, the check is mainly used to avoid the u64 -> u32 > overflow. This check guarantee no overflow. If some crazy hardware really > requests that large memory, the allocation will fail. Sure, the kalloc will print a warn on anyhow if it is too big Jason
On 10/4/24 5:43 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: >> If I understand correctly, the check is mainly used to avoid the u64 -> u32 >> overflow. This check guarantee no overflow. If some crazy hardware really >> requests that large memory, the allocation will fail. > Sure, the kalloc will print a warn on anyhow if it is too big Thank you. Will spin a new revision. > Jason
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:05:46AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > > On 10/4/24 5:43 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > > If I understand correctly, the check is mainly used to avoid the u64 -> u32 > > > overflow. This check guarantee no overflow. If some crazy hardware really > > > requests that large memory, the allocation will fail. > > Sure, the kalloc will print a warn on anyhow if it is too big > > Thank you. Will spin a new revision. Oh wait a sec, it is not so simple, the 31 is too big because the multiply will overflow or truncate to size_t too. This is why I picked something lower. Jason
On 10/4/24 9:14 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:05:46AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 10/4/24 5:43 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> If I understand correctly, the check is mainly used to avoid the u64 -> u32
>>>> overflow. This check guarantee no overflow. If some crazy hardware really
>>>> requests that large memory, the allocation will fail.
>>> Sure, the kalloc will print a warn on anyhow if it is too big
>> Thank you. Will spin a new revision.
> Oh wait a sec, it is not so simple, the 31 is too big because the
> multiply will overflow or truncate to size_t too. This is why I picked
> something lower.
How about define the size as u64?
static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
- u32 size;
+ u64 size;
struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
u32 num_sids;
It won't overflow and the large allocation will fail anyway.
>
> Jason
On 10/4/24 9:29 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 10/4/24 9:14 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:05:46AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/4/24 5:43 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> If I understand correctly, the check is mainly used to avoid the
>>>>> u64 -> u32
>>>>> overflow. This check guarantee no overflow. If some crazy hardware
>>>>> really
>>>>> requests that large memory, the allocation will fail.
>>>> Sure, the kalloc will print a warn on anyhow if it is too big
>>> Thank you. Will spin a new revision.
>> Oh wait a sec, it is not so simple, the 31 is too big because the
>> multiply will overflow or truncate to size_t too. This is why I picked
>> something lower.
>
> How about define the size as u64?
>
> static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> - u32 size;
> + u64 size;
> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
> u32 num_sids;
>
> It won't overflow and the large allocation will fail anyway.
The size parameter passed to dmam_alloc_coherent() is size_t type. We
may do:
+#define SIZE_4G (4 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024ULL)
+
static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
- u32 size;
+ u64 size;
struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
- u32 num_sids;
+ u64 num_sids;
/* It is not practical to have too large stream id size for
linear */
if (smmu->sid_bits > 31)
@@ -3667,6 +3669,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct
arm_smmu_device *smmu)
num_sids = arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(smmu);
size = num_sids * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
+ if (size > SIZE_4G)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
cfg->linear.table = dmam_alloc_coherent(smmu->dev, size,
&cfg->linear.ste_dma,
GFP_KERNEL);
>
>>
>> Jason
>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > size = num_sids * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste); > + if (size > SIZE_4G) > + return -EINVAL; If you want to do it like that then 'size >= SIZE_MAX' is the right expression Jason
On 10/4/24 9:41 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: >> size = num_sids * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste); >> + if (size > SIZE_4G) >> + return -EINVAL; > If you want to do it like that then 'size >= SIZE_MAX' is the right > expression Thank you. Will take it. And with the size check we don't need to check smmu->sid_bits. > > Jason
On 10/2/24 12:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:22:48PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>> Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
>>> No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
>>> fix it.
>> Yea, and looks like we are going to do with:
>> static inline u64 arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>>
>> Then let's be careful at those return-value holders too:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> u32 size;
>> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>>
>> size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
>> ^^^^
>> overflow?
>> [...]
>> cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
>> ^^^^^^^^
>> This is u32
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
Instead of relying in separate emails, I'd prefer reply in one single place.
This is linear stream table code, IIUC nobody actually implements such
large sid size with linear table per the earlier discussions.
> It would make some sense to have something like:
>
> u64 size = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid()
>
> /* Would require too much memory */
> if (size > SZ_512M)
> return -EINVAL;
This extra check is definitely fine to me and makes sense. SZ_512M is 1
<< 29, so it means no hardware actually has 29 bit sid size with linear
stream table. It makes sense to me. But I'm not smmu expert, so just
would like to double check such configuration is not existing.
>
> Just to reject bad configuration rather than truncate the allocation
> and overflow STE array memory or something. Having drivers be robust
> to this kind of stuff is a confidential compute topic :\
>
> Jason
On 2024-10-02 6:55 pm, Yang Shi wrote:
> The commit ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
> calculated the last index of L1 stream table by 1 << smmu->sid_bits. 1
> is 32 bit value.
> However some platforms, for example, AmpereOne, have 32-bit stream id size.
> This resulted in ouf-of-bound shift. The disassembly of shift is:
>
> ldr w2, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
> mov w20, 1
> lsl w20, w20, w2
>
> According to ARM spec, if the registers are 32 bit, the instruction actually
> does:
> dest = src << (shift % 32)
>
> So it actually shifted by zero bit.
>
> This caused v6.12-rc1 failed to boot on AmpereOne and other platform [1].
FWIW it's going to be seen on any platform with Arm MMU-700 since that
always advertises 32-bit StreamID support (as other SMMU implementations
may do too).
> UBSAN also reported:
>
> UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c:3628:29
> shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
At best, those two lines of actual UBSAN warning are the only part
relevant to the point, the rest of the backtrace below is definitely
not, please trim it.
> CPU: 70 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1 #4
> Hardware name: ZOLLNER SUNMOONLAKE/SunMoon Lake, BIOS 00.00. 2024-08-28 18:42:45 08/28/2024
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0xdc/0x140
> show_stack+0x20/0x40
> dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x80
> dump_stack+0x18/0x28
> ubsan_epilogue+0x10/0x48
> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0xd8/0x1a0
> arm_smmu_init_structures+0x374/0x3c8
> arm_smmu_device_probe+0x208/0x600
> platform_probe+0x70/0xe8
> really_probe+0xc8/0x3a0
> __driver_probe_device+0x84/0x160
> driver_probe_device+0x44/0x130
> __driver_attach+0xcc/0x208
> bus_for_each_dev+0x84/0x100
> driver_attach+0x2c/0x40
> bus_add_driver+0x158/0x290
> driver_register+0x70/0x138
> __platform_driver_register+0x2c/0x40
> arm_smmu_driver_init+0x28/0x40
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x318
> do_initcalls+0x198/0x1e0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x1e8
> kernel_init+0x28/0x160
> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>
> Using 64 bit immediate when doing shift can solve the problem. The
> disassembly after the fix looks like:
> ldr w20, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
> mov x0, 1
> lsl x0, x0, x20
>
> There are a couple of problematic places, extracted the shift into a helper.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d4b53bbb-333a-45b9-9eb0-23ddd0820a14@arm.com/
> Fixes: ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
> Tested-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 8 +++++---
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> v2: * Extracted the shift into a helper per Jason Gunthorpe.
> * Covered more places per Nicolin Chen and Jason Gunthorpe.
> * Used 1ULL instead of 1UL to guarantee 64 bit per Robin Murphy.
> * Made the subject more general since this is not AmpereOne specific
> problem per the report from James Morse.
> * Collected t-b tag from James Morse.
> * Added Fixes tag in commit log.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 737c5b882355..4eafd9f04808 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -3624,8 +3624,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_2lvl(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> u32 l1size;
> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
> + unsigned int max_sid = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(smmu);
> unsigned int last_sid_idx =
> - arm_smmu_strtab_l1_idx((1 << smmu->sid_bits) - 1);
> + arm_smmu_strtab_l1_idx(max_sid - 1);
>
> /* Calculate the L1 size, capped to the SIDSIZE. */
> cfg->l2.num_l1_ents = min(last_sid_idx + 1, STRTAB_MAX_L1_ENTRIES);
> @@ -3657,8 +3658,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> u32 size;
> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
> + unsigned int max_sid = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(smmu);
>
> - size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
> + size = max_sid * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
> cfg->linear.table = dmam_alloc_coherent(smmu->dev, size,
> &cfg->linear.ste_dma,
> GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -3668,7 +3670,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> size);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
> - cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
> + cfg->linear.num_ents = max_sid;
>
> arm_smmu_init_initial_stes(cfg->linear.table, cfg->linear.num_ents);
> return 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
> index 1e9952ca989f..f7e8465c629a 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
> @@ -853,6 +853,11 @@ struct arm_smmu_master_domain {
> ioasid_t ssid;
> };
>
> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
Nit: "max_sid" implies returning the largest supported StreamID value,
so it would be logical to either include the "- 1" in here and adjust
the other callers, or instead call this something like "num_sids".
Thanks,
Robin.
> +{
> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
> +}
> +
> static inline struct arm_smmu_domain *to_smmu_domain(struct iommu_domain *dom)
> {
> return container_of(dom, struct arm_smmu_domain, domain);
On 10/2/24 11:21 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2024-10-02 6:55 pm, Yang Shi wrote:
>> The commit ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
>> arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
>> calculated the last index of L1 stream table by 1 << smmu->sid_bits. 1
>> is 32 bit value.
>> However some platforms, for example, AmpereOne, have 32-bit stream id
>> size.
>> This resulted in ouf-of-bound shift. The disassembly of shift is:
>>
>> ldr w2, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
>> mov w20, 1
>> lsl w20, w20, w2
>>
>> According to ARM spec, if the registers are 32 bit, the instruction
>> actually
>> does:
>> dest = src << (shift % 32)
>>
>> So it actually shifted by zero bit.
>>
>> This caused v6.12-rc1 failed to boot on AmpereOne and other platform
>> [1].
>
> FWIW it's going to be seen on any platform with Arm MMU-700 since that
> always advertises 32-bit StreamID support (as other SMMU
> implementations may do too).
I see. Will add this info to the commit log.
>
>> UBSAN also reported:
>>
>> UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c:3628:29
>> shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
>
> At best, those two lines of actual UBSAN warning are the only part
> relevant to the point, the rest of the backtrace below is definitely
> not, please trim it.
OK.
>
>> CPU: 70 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1 #4
>> Hardware name: ZOLLNER SUNMOONLAKE/SunMoon Lake, BIOS 00.00.
>> 2024-08-28 18:42:45 08/28/2024
>> Call trace:
>> dump_backtrace+0xdc/0x140
>> show_stack+0x20/0x40
>> dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x80
>> dump_stack+0x18/0x28
>> ubsan_epilogue+0x10/0x48
>> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0xd8/0x1a0
>> arm_smmu_init_structures+0x374/0x3c8
>> arm_smmu_device_probe+0x208/0x600
>> platform_probe+0x70/0xe8
>> really_probe+0xc8/0x3a0
>> __driver_probe_device+0x84/0x160
>> driver_probe_device+0x44/0x130
>> __driver_attach+0xcc/0x208
>> bus_for_each_dev+0x84/0x100
>> driver_attach+0x2c/0x40
>> bus_add_driver+0x158/0x290
>> driver_register+0x70/0x138
>> __platform_driver_register+0x2c/0x40
>> arm_smmu_driver_init+0x28/0x40
>> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x318
>> do_initcalls+0x198/0x1e0
>> kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x1e8
>> kernel_init+0x28/0x160
>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>
>> Using 64 bit immediate when doing shift can solve the problem. The
>> disassembly after the fix looks like:
>> ldr w20, [x19, 828] //, smmu_7(D)->sid_bits
>> mov x0, 1
>> lsl x0, x0, x20
>>
>> There are a couple of problematic places, extracted the shift into a
>> helper.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d4b53bbb-333a-45b9-9eb0-23ddd0820a14@arm.com/
>> Fixes: ce410410f1a7 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
>> arm_smmu_strtab_l1/2_idx()")
>> Tested-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 8 +++++---
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 5 +++++
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> v2: * Extracted the shift into a helper per Jason Gunthorpe.
>> * Covered more places per Nicolin Chen and Jason Gunthorpe.
>> * Used 1ULL instead of 1UL to guarantee 64 bit per Robin Murphy.
>> * Made the subject more general since this is not AmpereOne
>> specific
>> problem per the report from James Morse.
>> * Collected t-b tag from James Morse.
>> * Added Fixes tag in commit log.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index 737c5b882355..4eafd9f04808 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -3624,8 +3624,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_2lvl(struct
>> arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> u32 l1size;
>> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>> + unsigned int max_sid = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(smmu);
>> unsigned int last_sid_idx =
>> - arm_smmu_strtab_l1_idx((1 << smmu->sid_bits) - 1);
>> + arm_smmu_strtab_l1_idx(max_sid - 1);
>> /* Calculate the L1 size, capped to the SIDSIZE. */
>> cfg->l2.num_l1_ents = min(last_sid_idx + 1,
>> STRTAB_MAX_L1_ENTRIES);
>> @@ -3657,8 +3658,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct
>> arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> u32 size;
>> struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>> + unsigned int max_sid = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(smmu);
>> - size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
>> + size = max_sid * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
>> cfg->linear.table = dmam_alloc_coherent(smmu->dev, size,
>> &cfg->linear.ste_dma,
>> GFP_KERNEL);
>> @@ -3668,7 +3670,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct
>> arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> size);
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> }
>> - cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
>> + cfg->linear.num_ents = max_sid;
>> arm_smmu_init_initial_stes(cfg->linear.table,
>> cfg->linear.num_ents);
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> index 1e9952ca989f..f7e8465c629a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> @@ -853,6 +853,11 @@ struct arm_smmu_master_domain {
>> ioasid_t ssid;
>> };
>> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct
>> arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>
> Nit: "max_sid" implies returning the largest supported StreamID value,
> so it would be logical to either include the "- 1" in here and adjust
> the other callers, or instead call this something like "num_sids".
Will use "num_sids".
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
>> +{
>> + return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline struct arm_smmu_domain *to_smmu_domain(struct
>> iommu_domain *dom)
>> {
>> return container_of(dom, struct arm_smmu_domain, domain);
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.