LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rajneesh Bhardwaj <irenic.rajneesh@gmail.com>,
	Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>,
	Gayatri Kammela <gayatri.kammela@intel.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
	Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Prevent possibile overflow
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 12:50:30 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve0G=Bh-D710R6CcdkVMrud82sw8Y4zvu7sdt=ZF4r-+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210814014728.520856-1-david.e.box@linux.intel.com>

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 4:49 AM David E. Box
<david.e.box@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Substate priority levels are encoded in 4 bits in the LPM_PRI register.
> This value was used as an index to an array whose element size was less
> than 16, leading to the possibility of overflow should we read a larger
> than expected priority.  In addition to the overflow, bad values could lead
> to incorrect state reporting.  So rework the priority code to prevent the
> overflow and perform some validation of the register. Use the priority
> register values if they give an ordering of unique numbers between 0 and
> the maximum number of states.  Otherwise, use a default ordering instead.

Thanks! Looks much better now. A couple of minor comments below. With
or without them being addressed
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>

> Reported-by: Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>
> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> v3:     Modifying Andy's suggestion, just place the entire verification
>         in a separate function. If it fails, then keep the default
>         ordering. If it passes, overwrite with the verified ordering.
>
>         Fix error in default order array.
>
>         Also fix spelling noted by Andy drop the size comment since
>         the array size is set when declared.
>
> v2:     Remove lpm_priority size increase. Instead, remove that array and
>         create 2 new local arrays, one to save priority levels in mode order,
>         and one to save modes in priority order. Use the mode_order list to
>         validate that no priority level is above the maximum and to validate
>         that they are all unique values. Then we can safely create a
>         priority_order list that will be the basis of how we report substate
>         information.
>
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.h |  2 +
>  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.c
> index b0e486a6bdfb..ae410a358ffe 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.c
> @@ -1449,9 +1449,42 @@ static int pmc_core_pkgc_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused)
>  }
>  DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(pmc_core_pkgc);
>
> -static void pmc_core_get_low_power_modes(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
> +static bool pmc_core_pri_verify(u32 lpm_pri, u8 *mode_order)
>  {
> -       u8 lpm_priority[LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES];
> +       int i, j;
> +
> +       if (!lpm_pri)
> +               return false;
> +       /*
> +        * Each byte contains the priority level for 2 modes (7:4 and 3:0).
> +        * In a 32 bit register this allows for describing 8 modes. Store the
> +        * levels and look for values out of range.
> +        */
> +       for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> +               int level = lpm_pri & GENMASK(3, 0);
> +
> +               if (level >= LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES)
> +                       return false;
> +
> +               mode_order[i] = level;
> +               lpm_pri >>= 4;
> +       }

> +       /* Check that we have unique values */
> +       for (i = 0; i < LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES - 1; i++)
> +               for (j = i + 1; j < LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES; j++)
> +                       if (mode_order[i] == mode_order[j])
> +                               return false;

There are ways to optimize this from O(n^2) to O(n), but it's not critical here.

> +       return true;
> +}
> +
> +static void pmc_core_get_low_power_modes(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +       struct pmc_dev *pmcdev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +       u8 pri_order[LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES] = LPM_DEFAULT_PRI;
> +       u8 mode_order[LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES];
> +       u32 lpm_pri;
>         u32 lpm_en;
>         int mode, i, p;
>
> @@ -1462,24 +1495,28 @@ static void pmc_core_get_low_power_modes(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
>         lpm_en = pmc_core_reg_read(pmcdev, pmcdev->map->lpm_en_offset);
>         pmcdev->num_lpm_modes = hweight32(lpm_en);
>
> -       /* Each byte contains information for 2 modes (7:4 and 3:0) */
> -       for (mode = 0; mode < LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES; mode += 2) {
> -               u8 priority = pmc_core_reg_read_byte(pmcdev,
> -                               pmcdev->map->lpm_priority_offset + (mode / 2));
> -               int pri0 = GENMASK(3, 0) & priority;
> -               int pri1 = (GENMASK(7, 4) & priority) >> 4;
> +       /* Read 32 bit LPM_PRI register */
> +       lpm_pri = pmc_core_reg_read(pmcdev, pmcdev->map->lpm_priority_offset);
>
> -               lpm_priority[pri0] = mode;
> -               lpm_priority[pri1] = mode + 1;
> -       }
>
>         /*
> -        * Loop though all modes from lowest to highest priority,
> +        * If lpm_pri value passes verification, then override the default
> +        * modes here. Otherwise stick with the default.
> +        */
> +       if (pmc_core_pri_verify(lpm_pri, mode_order))
> +               /* Get list of modes in priority order */
> +               for (mode = 0; mode < LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES; mode++)
> +                       pri_order[mode_order[mode]] = mode;
> +       else
> +               dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Assuming a default substate order for this platform\n");
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Loop through all modes from lowest to highest priority,
>          * and capture all enabled modes in order
>          */
>         i = 0;
>         for (p = LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES - 1; p >= 0; p--) {
> -               int mode = lpm_priority[p];
> +               int mode = pri_order[p];
>
>                 if (!(BIT(mode) & lpm_en))
>                         continue;
> @@ -1675,7 +1712,7 @@ static int pmc_core_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         mutex_init(&pmcdev->lock);
>
>         pmcdev->pmc_xram_read_bit = pmc_core_check_read_lock_bit(pmcdev);
> -       pmc_core_get_low_power_modes(pmcdev);
> +       pmc_core_get_low_power_modes(pdev);
>         pmc_core_do_dmi_quirks(pmcdev);
>
>         if (pmcdev->map == &tgl_reg_map)
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.h b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.h
> index e8dae9c6c45f..b9bf3d3d6f7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.h
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.h
> @@ -188,6 +188,8 @@ enum ppfear_regs {
>  #define ICL_PMC_SLP_S0_RES_COUNTER_STEP                0x64
>
>  #define LPM_MAX_NUM_MODES                      8
> +#define LPM_DEFAULT_PRI                                { 7, 6, 2, 5, 4, 1, 3, 0 }

What I meant here is to add static_assert() to avoid ARRAY_SIZE() != NUM_MODES.

>  #define GET_X2_COUNTER(v)                      ((v) >> 1)
>  #define LPM_STS_LATCH_MODE                     BIT(31)


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-14  9:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-14  1:47 David E. Box
2021-08-14  9:50 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2021-08-17 18:56 ` Hans de Goede
2021-08-19  1:22 ` Randy Dunlap

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHp75Ve0G=Bh-D710R6CcdkVMrud82sw8Y4zvu7sdt=ZF4r-+A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=david.e.box@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gayatri.kammela@intel.com \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=irenic.rajneesh@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=novikov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v3] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Prevent possibile overflow' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).