On 3 September 2015 at 17:08, Jon Hunter <jonath...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On 02/09/15 19:28, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Jon Hunter <jonath...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>> From: Seshagiri Holi <sh...@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Certain eMMC devices allow vendor specific device information to be read
>>> via a sequence of vendor commands. These vendor commands must be issued
>>> in sequence and an atomic fashion. One way to support this would be to
>>> add an ioctl function for sending a sequence of commands to the device
>>> atomically as proposed here. These combo commands are simple array of
>>> the existing mmc_ioc_cmd structure.
>>
>> This seems reasonable to me, being able to do a sequence of
>> back-to-back operations without system read/writes slipping through.
I agree, this change seems reasonable!
Perhaps, from clarification point of view, we should change from
naming it "combo" commands to *sequence* of commands. Both in the code
and in the change log, please.
>>
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h
>>> index 1f5e68923929..5943e51f22b3 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h
>>> @@ -45,8 +45,23 @@ struct mmc_ioc_cmd {
>>> };
>>> #define mmc_ioc_cmd_set_data(ic, ptr) ic.data_ptr = (__u64)(unsigned long)
>>> ptr
>>>
>>> -#define MMC_IOC_CMD _IOWR(MMC_BLOCK_MAJOR, 0, struct mmc_ioc_cmd)
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd - combo command information
>>> + * @num_of_cmds: number of commands to send
>>> + * @mmc_ioc_cmd_list: pointer to list of commands
>>> + */
>>> +struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd {
>>> + uint8_t num_of_cmds;
>>> + struct mmc_ioc_cmd *mmc_ioc_cmd_list;
>>> +};
>>
>> The size of this struct will depend on the pointer size of userspace.
>>
>> It might be better to use a u64 for the pointer instead. Otherwise
>> you'd need a compat ioctl wrapper to copy a 32-bit pointer over on a
>> 64-bit kernel.
>
> Oh, good point. I have made this change today. I have also tested
> this now with a hacked version of mmc-utils to send a couple status
> commands back-to-back. I have tested on -next with ARM32 and on
> ARM64 with an older 3.18 kernel (due to lack of mmc support in the
> mainline for my ARM64 board) and seems to be working fine. Here is
> an updated version ...
>
> Jon
>
> From fe5849a0d91ebbcfd092c74696f3fa7d7de3a156 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Seshagiri Holi <sh...@nvidia.com>
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:27:43 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] mmc: block: Add new ioctl to send combo commands
>
> Certain eMMC devices allow vendor specific device information to be read
> via a sequence of vendor commands. These vendor commands must be issued
> in sequence and an atomic fashion. One way to support this would be to
> add an ioctl function for sending a sequence of commands to the device
> atomically as proposed here. These combo commands are simple array of
> the existing mmc_ioc_cmd structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Seshagiri Holi <sh...@nvidia.com>
> [ jonath...@nvidia.com: Rebased on linux-next from v3.18. Changed
> userspace pointer type for combo command to be a u64. Updated
> commit message ]
> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonath...@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/card/block.c | 199
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h | 17 +++-
> 2 files changed, 171 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> index c742cfd7674e..0423d95ea020 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> @@ -387,6 +387,22 @@ out:
> return ERR_PTR(err);
> }
>
> +static int mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_to_user(struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *ic_ptr,
> + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata)
> +{
> + if (copy_to_user(&(ic_ptr->response), idata->ic.response,
> + sizeof(idata->ic.response)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + if (!idata->ic.write_flag) {
> + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)(unsigned
> long)idata->ic.data_ptr,
> + idata->buf, idata->buf_bytes))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int ioctl_rpmb_card_status_poll(struct mmc_card *card, u32 *status,
> u32 retries_max)
> {
> @@ -447,12 +463,9 @@ out:
> return err;
> }
>
> -static int mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
> - struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *ic_ptr)
> +static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data
> *md,
> + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata)
> {
> - struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata;
> - struct mmc_blk_data *md;
> - struct mmc_card *card;
> struct mmc_command cmd = {0};
> struct mmc_data data = {0};
> struct mmc_request mrq = {NULL};
> @@ -461,33 +474,12 @@ static int mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
> int is_rpmb = false;
> u32 status = 0;
>
> - /*
> - * The caller must have CAP_SYS_RAWIO, and must be calling this on the
> - * whole block device, not on a partition. This prevents overspray
> - * between sibling partitions.
> - */
> - if ((!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) || (bdev != bdev->bd_contains))
> - return -EPERM;
> -
> - idata = mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_from_user(ic_ptr);
> - if (IS_ERR(idata))
> - return PTR_ERR(idata);
> -
> - md = mmc_blk_get(bdev->bd_disk);
> - if (!md) {
> - err = -EINVAL;
> - goto cmd_err;
> - }
> + if (!card || !md || !idata)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (md->area_type & MMC_BLK_DATA_AREA_RPMB)
> is_rpmb = true;
>
> - card = md->queue.card;
> - if (IS_ERR(card)) {
> - err = PTR_ERR(card);
> - goto cmd_done;
> - }
> -
> cmd.opcode = idata->ic.opcode;
> cmd.arg = idata->ic.arg;
> cmd.flags = idata->ic.flags;
> @@ -582,18 +574,7 @@ static int mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
> if (idata->ic.postsleep_min_us)
> usleep_range(idata->ic.postsleep_min_us,
> idata->ic.postsleep_max_us);
>
> - if (copy_to_user(&(ic_ptr->response), cmd.resp, sizeof(cmd.resp))) {
> - err = -EFAULT;
> - goto cmd_rel_host;
> - }
> -
> - if (!idata->ic.write_flag) {
> - if (copy_to_user((void __user *)(unsigned long)
> idata->ic.data_ptr,
> - idata->buf,
> idata->buf_bytes)) {
> - err = -EFAULT;
> - goto cmd_rel_host;
> - }
> - }
> + memcpy(&(idata->ic.response), cmd.resp, sizeof(cmd.resp));
>
> if (is_rpmb) {
> /*
> @@ -609,6 +590,48 @@ static int mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
>
> cmd_rel_host:
> mmc_put_card(card);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static int mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
> + struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *ic_ptr)
> +{
> + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata;
> + struct mmc_blk_data *md;
> + struct mmc_card *card;
> + int err;
> +
> + /*
> + * The caller must have CAP_SYS_RAWIO, and must be calling this on the
> + * whole block device, not on a partition. This prevents overspray
> + * between sibling partitions.
> + */
> + if ((!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) || (bdev != bdev->bd_contains))
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + idata = mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_from_user(ic_ptr);
> + if (IS_ERR(idata))
> + return PTR_ERR(idata);
> +
> + md = mmc_blk_get(bdev->bd_disk);
> + if (!md) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto cmd_err;
> + }
> +
> + card = md->queue.card;
> + if (IS_ERR(card)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(card);
> + goto cmd_done;
> + }
> +
> + mmc_claim_host(card->host);
As __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd() already does mmc_get_card(), you don't need
mmc_claim_host() here.
> +
> + err = __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(card, md, idata);
> +
> + mmc_release_host(card->host);
As __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd() already does mmc_put_card(), you don't need
mmc_release_host() here.
> +
> + err = mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_to_user(ic_ptr, idata);
>
> cmd_done:
> mmc_blk_put(md);
> @@ -618,13 +641,101 @@ cmd_err:
> return err;
> }
>
> +static int mmc_blk_ioctl_combo_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
> + struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd __user *user)
> +{
> + struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd mcci = {0};
> + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data **ioc_data = NULL;
> + struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *usr_ptr;
> + struct mmc_card *card;
> + struct mmc_blk_data *md;
> + int i, err = -EFAULT;
> + u8 n_cmds = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * The caller must have CAP_SYS_RAWIO, and must be calling this on the
> + * whole block device, not on a partition. This prevents overspray
> + * between sibling partitions.
> + */
> + if ((!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) || (bdev != bdev->bd_contains))
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(&mcci, user, sizeof(struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + if (!mcci.num_of_cmds) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto cmd_err;
> + }
> +
> + ioc_data = kcalloc(mcci.num_of_cmds, sizeof(*ioc_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ioc_data) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto cmd_err;
> + }
> +
> + usr_ptr = (void * __user)(unsigned long)mcci.cmds_ptr;
> + for (n_cmds = 0; n_cmds < mcci.num_of_cmds; n_cmds++) {
> + ioc_data[n_cmds] =
> + mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_from_user(&usr_ptr[n_cmds]);
> + if (IS_ERR(ioc_data[n_cmds])) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(ioc_data[n_cmds]);
> + goto cmd_err;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + md = mmc_blk_get(bdev->bd_disk);
> + if (!md)
> + goto cmd_err;
> +
> + card = md->queue.card;
> + if (IS_ERR(card)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(card);
> + goto cmd_done;
> + }
> +
> + mmc_claim_host(card->host);
Change to mmc_get_card().
> + for (i = 0; i < n_cmds; i++) {
> + err = __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(card, md, ioc_data[i]);
> + if (err) {
> + mmc_release_host(card->host);
> + goto cmd_done;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + mmc_release_host(card->host);
Change to mmc_put_card().
> +
> + /* copy to user if data and response */
> + for (i = 0; i < n_cmds; i++) {
> + err = mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_to_user(&usr_ptr[i], ioc_data[i]);
> + if (err)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> +cmd_done:
> + mmc_blk_put(md);
> +cmd_err:
> + for (i = 0; i < n_cmds; i++) {
> + kfree(ioc_data[i]->buf);
> + kfree(ioc_data[i]);
> + }
> + kfree(ioc_data);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> static int mmc_blk_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> {
> - int ret = -EINVAL;
> - if (cmd == MMC_IOC_CMD)
> - ret = mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(bdev, (struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user
> *)arg);
> - return ret;
> + switch (cmd) {
> + case MMC_IOC_CMD:
> + return mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(bdev,
> + (struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *)arg);
> + case MMC_IOC_COMBO_CMD:
> + return mmc_blk_ioctl_combo_cmd(bdev,
> + (struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd __user *)arg);
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
Don't forget to build with this configuration as well, I don't think
you have. :-)
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h
> index 1f5e68923929..593e665177e2 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/mmc/ioctl.h
> @@ -45,8 +45,23 @@ struct mmc_ioc_cmd {
> };
> #define mmc_ioc_cmd_set_data(ic, ptr) ic.data_ptr = (__u64)(unsigned long)
> ptr
>
> -#define MMC_IOC_CMD _IOWR(MMC_BLOCK_MAJOR, 0, struct mmc_ioc_cmd)
> +/**
> + * struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd - combo command information
> + * @cmds_ptr: Address of the location where the list of commands resides
> + * @num_of_cmds: number of commands to send
> + */
> +struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd {
> + __u64 cmds_ptr;
> + uint8_t num_of_cmds;
> +};
>
> +#define MMC_IOC_CMD _IOWR(MMC_BLOCK_MAJOR, 0, struct mmc_ioc_cmd)
> +/*
> + * MMC_COMBO_IOC_CMD: Used to send an array of MMC commands described by
> + * the structure mmc_ioc_combo_cmd. The MMC driver will issue all
> + * commands in array in sequence to card.
> + */
> +#define MMC_IOC_COMBO_CMD _IOWR(MMC_BLOCK_MAJOR, 1, struct mmc_ioc_combo_cmd)
> /*
> * Since this ioctl is only meant to enhance (and not replace) normal access
> * to the mmc bus device, an upper data transfer limit of MMC_IOC_MAX_BYTES
> --
> 2.1.4
>
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
