On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 06:13, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 02:40:19PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Fri Jul 5, 2024 at 11:41 AM AEST, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 11:18:47AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Thu Jul 4, 2024 at 10:15 PM AEST, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 04:17, David Gibson
> > > > > <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 04:20:02PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 14:39, Akihiko Odaki
> > > > > > > <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FDT properties are aligned by 4 bytes, not 8 bytes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > hw/ppc/vof.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/vof.c b/hw/ppc/vof.c
> > > > > > > > index e3b430a81f4f..b5b6514d79fc 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/hw/ppc/vof.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/hw/ppc/vof.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ static void vof_dt_memory_available(void
> > > > > > > > *fdt, GArray *claimed, uint64_t base)
> > > > > > > > mem0_reg = fdt_getprop(fdt, offset, "reg", &proplen);
> > > > > > > > g_assert(mem0_reg && proplen == sizeof(uint32_t) * (ac +
> > > > > > > > sc));
> > > > > > > > if (sc == 2) {
> > > > > > > > - mem0_end = be64_to_cpu(*(uint64_t *)(mem0_reg +
> > > > > > > > sizeof(uint32_t) * ac));
> > > > > > > > + mem0_end = ldq_be_p(mem0_reg + sizeof(uint32_t) * ac);
> > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > mem0_end = be32_to_cpu(*(uint32_t *)(mem0_reg +
> > > > > > > > sizeof(uint32_t) * ac));
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did wonder if there was a better way to do what this is doing,
> > > > > > > but neither we (in system/device_tree.c) nor libfdt seem to
> > > > > > > provide one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > libfdt does provide unaligned access helpers (fdt32_ld() etc.), but
> > > > > > not an automatic aligned-or-unaligned helper. Maybe we should add
> > > > > > that?
> > > > >
> > > > > fdt32_ld() and friends only do the "load from this bit of memory"
> > > > > part, which we already have QEMU utility functions for (and which
> > > > > are this patch uses).
> > > > >
> > > > > This particular bit of code is dealing with an fdt property ("memory")
> > > > > that is an array of (address, size) tuples where address and size
> > > > > can independently be either 32 or 64 bits, and it wants the
> > > > > size value of tuple 0. So the missing functionality is something at
> > > > > a higher level than fdt32_ld() which would let you say "give me
> > > > > tuple N field X" with some way to specify the tuple layout. (Which
> > > > > is an awkward kind of API to write in C.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Slightly less general, but for this case we could perhaps have
> > > > > something like the getprop equivalent of
> > > > > qemu_fdt_setprop_sized_cells():
> > > > >
> > > > > uint64_t value_array[2];
> > > > > qemu_fdt_getprop_sized_cells(fdt, nodename, "memory", &value_array,
> > > > > ac, sc);
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * fills in value_array[0] with address, value_array[1] with size,
> > > > > * probably barfs if the varargs-list of cell-sizes doesn't
> > > > > * cover the whole property, similar to the current assert on
> > > > > * proplen.
> > > > > */
> > > > > mem0_end = value_array[0];
> > > >
> > > > Since 4/8 byte cells are most common and size is probably
> > > > normally known, what about something simpler to start with?
> > >
> > > Hrm, I don't think this helps much. As Peter points out the actual
> > > load isn't really the issue, it's locating the right spot for it.
> >
> > I don't really see why that's a problem, it's just a pointer
> > addition - base + fdt_address_cells * 4. The problem was in
>
> This is harder if #address-cells and #size-cells are different, or if
> you're parsing ranges and #address-cells is different between parent
> and child node.
>
> > the memory access (yes it's fixed with the patch but you could
> > add a general libfdt way to do it).
>
> Huh.. well I'm getting different impressions of what the problem
> actually is from what I initially read versus Peter Maydell's
> comments, so I don't really know what to think.
>
> If it's just the load then fdt32_ld() etc. already exist. Or is it
> really such a hot path that unconditionally handling unaligned
> accesses isn't tenable?
The specific problem here is that the code as written tries to
cast a not-aligned-enough pointer to uint64_t* to do the load,
which is UB. The patch submitted fixes that, and personally I
think it would be entirely fine to say that's all we need to do here.
*If* we want to look at the broader question of "why is this
code that's reading something out of an fdt having to do the
pretty low-level action of getting the start address of the
fdt property and then doing pointer arithmetic and then fishing
a value out of it as a 64-bit unaligned load?" then we get into
"do we want to provide a helper function that lets the caller
say 'give me element X from tuple Y'?". But that seems like a
lot of effort for what's basically a single callsite we would
be tidying up...
thanks
-- PMM
