[PATCH v3 1/9] sandbox: efi_loader: Correct use of addresses as pointers
Ilias Apalodimas
ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org
Fri Nov 15 15:40:13 CET 2024
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 16:28, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ilias,
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 06:58, Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 15:54, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 15:53, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ilias,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 at 00:04, Ilias Apalodimas
> >>> <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Simon,
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 16:11, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The cache-flush function is incorrect which causes a crash in the
> >>> > > remoteproc tests with arm64.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Fix both problems by using map_sysmem() to convert an address to a
> >>> > > pointer and map_to_sysmem() to convert a pointer to an address.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Also update the image-loader's cache-flushing logic.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>> > > Fixes: 3286d223fd7 ("sandbox: implement invalidate_icache_all()")
> >>> > > ---
> >>> > >
> >>> > > (no changes since v2)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Changes in v2:
> >>> > > - Drop message about EFI_LOADER
> >>> > >
> >>> > > arch/sandbox/cpu/cache.c | 8 +++++++-
> >>> > > drivers/remoteproc/rproc-elf-loader.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> >>> > > lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c | 3 ++-
> >>> > > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > diff --git a/arch/sandbox/cpu/cache.c b/arch/sandbox/cpu/cache.c
> >>> > > index c8a5e64214b..96b3da47e8e 100644
> >>> > > --- a/arch/sandbox/cpu/cache.c
> >>> > > +++ b/arch/sandbox/cpu/cache.c
> >>> > > @@ -4,12 +4,18 @@
> >>> > > */
> >>> > >
> >>> > > #include <cpu_func.h>
> >>> > > +#include <mapmem.h>
> >>> > > #include <asm/state.h>
> >>> > >
> >>> > > void flush_cache(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
> >>> > > {
> >>> > > + void *ptr;
> >>> > > +
> >>> > > + ptr = map_sysmem(addr, size);
> >>> > > +
> >>> > > /* Clang uses (char *) parameters, GCC (void *) */
> >>> > > - __builtin___clear_cache((void *)addr, (void *)(addr + size));
> >>> > > + __builtin___clear_cache(map_sysmem(addr, size), ptr + size);
> >>> > > + unmap_sysmem(ptr);
> >>> > > }
> >>> > >
> >>> > > void invalidate_icache_all(void)
> >>> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/rproc-elf-loader.c b/drivers/remoteproc/rproc-elf-loader.c
> >>> > > index ab1836b3f07..0b3941b7798 100644
> >>> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/rproc-elf-loader.c
> >>> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/rproc-elf-loader.c
> >>> > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >>> > > #include <dm.h>
> >>> > > #include <elf.h>
> >>> > > #include <log.h>
> >>> > > +#include <mapmem.h>
> >>> > > #include <remoteproc.h>
> >>> > > #include <asm/cache.h>
> >>> > > #include <dm/device_compat.h>
> >>> > > @@ -180,6 +181,7 @@ int rproc_elf32_load_image(struct udevice *dev, unsigned long addr, ulong size)
> >>> > > for (i = 0; i < ehdr->e_phnum; i++, phdr++) {
> >>> > > void *dst = (void *)(uintptr_t)phdr->p_paddr;
> >>> > > void *src = (void *)addr + phdr->p_offset;
> >>> > > + ulong dst_addr;
> >>> > >
> >>> > > if (phdr->p_type != PT_LOAD)
> >>> > > continue;
> >>> > > @@ -195,10 +197,11 @@ int rproc_elf32_load_image(struct udevice *dev, unsigned long addr, ulong size)
> >>> > > if (phdr->p_filesz != phdr->p_memsz)
> >>> > > memset(dst + phdr->p_filesz, 0x00,
> >>> > > phdr->p_memsz - phdr->p_filesz);
> >>> > > - flush_cache(rounddown((unsigned long)dst, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN),
> >>> > > - roundup((unsigned long)dst + phdr->p_filesz,
> >>> > > + dst_addr = map_to_sysmem(dst);
> >>> > > + flush_cache(rounddown(dst_addr, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN),
> >>> > > + roundup(dst_addr + phdr->p_filesz,
> >>> > > ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN) -
> >>> > > - rounddown((unsigned long)dst, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
> >>> > > + rounddown(dst_addr, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
> >>> > > }
> >>> > >
> >>> > > return 0;
> >>> > > @@ -377,6 +380,7 @@ int rproc_elf32_load_rsc_table(struct udevice *dev, ulong fw_addr,
> >>> > > const struct dm_rproc_ops *ops;
> >>> > > Elf32_Shdr *shdr;
> >>> > > void *src, *dst;
> >>> > > + ulong dst_addr;
> >>> > >
> >>> > > shdr = rproc_elf32_find_rsc_table(dev, fw_addr, fw_size);
> >>> > > if (!shdr)
> >>> > > @@ -398,10 +402,10 @@ int rproc_elf32_load_rsc_table(struct udevice *dev, ulong fw_addr,
> >>> > > (ulong)dst, *rsc_size);
> >>> > >
> >>> > > memcpy(dst, src, *rsc_size);
> >>> > > - flush_cache(rounddown((unsigned long)dst, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN),
> >>> > > - roundup((unsigned long)dst + *rsc_size,
> >>> > > - ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN) -
> >>> > > - rounddown((unsigned long)dst, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
> >>> > > + dst_addr = map_to_sysmem(dst);
> >>> > > + flush_cache(rounddown(dst_addr, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN),
> >>> > > + roundup(dst_addr + *rsc_size, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN) -
> >>> > > + rounddown(dst_addr, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN));
> >>> > >
> >>> > > return 0;
> >>> > > }
> >>> > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c
> >>> > > index 0ddf69a0918..bb58cf1badb 100644
> >>> > > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c
> >>> > > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c
> >>> > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> >>> > > #include <efi_loader.h>
> >>> > > #include <log.h>
> >>> > > #include <malloc.h>
> >>> > > +#include <mapmem.h>
> >>> > > #include <pe.h>
> >>> > > #include <sort.h>
> >>> > > #include <crypto/mscode.h>
> >>> > > @@ -977,7 +978,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_load_pe(struct efi_loaded_image_obj *handle,
> >>> > > }
> >>> > >
> >>> > > /* Flush cache */
> >>> > > - flush_cache((ulong)efi_reloc,
> >>> > > + flush_cache(map_to_sysmem(efi_reloc),
> >>> >
> >>> > Shouldn't we now umap that address on the err: tag?
> >>>
> >>> This address should be in sandbox's DRAM, so there is no mapping
> >>> created. The mapping is needed for things that are not in the emulated
> >>> DRAM, such as stack variables.
> >>
> >>
> >> Isn't there a ref counter that gets increased for these though?
> >> Why would we not want to decrease it properly?
> >
> >
> > Ah scratch that, the refcnt is not for the sandbox DRAM. But in any case, I don't like seeing that magic of people knowing what they should unmap or not.
> > I would prefer calling the unmap call unconditionally, since the function deals with sandbox memory correctly already
>
> Yes, that's OK with me and is clearer, as you say.
Thanks Simon, with the unmap call added
Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>
>
> Regards,
> Simon
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list