Re: [PATCH v2 18/63] drm/amd/pm: Use struct_group() for memcpy() region
From: Lazar, Lijo
Date: Thu Aug 19 2021 - 01:04:15 EST
On 8/19/2021 5:29 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 05:12:28PM +0530, Lazar, Lijo wrote:
On 8/18/2021 11:34 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid
intentionally writing across neighboring fields.
Use struct_group() in structs:
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_5
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_6
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_7
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_10
PPTable_t
so the grouped members can be referenced together. This will allow
memcpy() and sizeof() to more easily reason about sizes, improve
readability, and avoid future warnings about writing beyond the end of
the first member.
"pahole" shows no size nor member offset changes to any structs.
"objdump -d" shows no object code changes.
Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@xxxxxxx>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Hawking Zhang <Hawking.Zhang@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Feifei Xu <Feifei.Xu@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Lijo Lazar <lijo.lazar@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Likun Gao <Likun.Gao@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Jiawei Gu <Jiawei.Gu@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Evan Quan <evan.quan@xxxxxxx>
Cc: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
Link: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flkml%2FCADnq5_Npb8uYvd%2BR4UHgf-w8-cQj3JoODjviJR_Y9w9wqJ71mQ%40mail.gmail.com&data=04%7C01%7Clijo.lazar%40amd.com%7C3861f20094074bf7328808d962a433f2%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637649279701053991%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=386LcfJJGfQfHsXBuK17LMqxJ2nFtGoj%2FUjoN2ZtJd0%3D&reserved=0
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/atomfirmware.h | 9 ++++++++-
.../gpu/drm/amd/pm/inc/smu11_driver_if_arcturus.h | 3 ++-
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/inc/smu11_driver_if_navi10.h | 3 ++-
.../gpu/drm/amd/pm/inc/smu13_driver_if_aldebaran.h | 3 ++-
Hi Kees,
Hi! Thanks for looking into this.
The headers which define these structs are firmware/VBIOS interfaces and are
picked directly from those components. There are difficulties in grouping
them to structs at the original source as that involves other component
changes.
So, can you help me understand this a bit more? It sounds like these are
generated headers, yes? I'd like to understand your constraints and
weight them against various benefits that could be achieved here.
The groupings I made do appear to be roughly documented already,
for example:
struct atom_common_table_header table_header;
// SECTION: BOARD PARAMETERS
+ struct_group(dpm_info,
Something emitted the "BOARD PARAMETERS" section heading as a comment,
so it likely also would know where it ends, yes? The good news here is
that for the dpm_info groups, they all end at the end of the existing
structs, see:
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_5
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_6
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_7
struct atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_10
The matching regions in the PPTable_t structs are similarly marked with a
"BOARD PARAMETERS" section heading comment:
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/inc/smu11_driver_if_arcturus.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/inc/smu11_driver_if_arcturus.h
@@ -643,6 +643,7 @@ typedef struct {
// SECTION: BOARD PARAMETERS
// SVI2 Board Parameters
+ struct_group(v4_6,
uint16_t MaxVoltageStepGfx; // In mV(Q2) Max voltage step that SMU will request. Multiple steps are taken if voltage change exceeds this value.
uint16_t MaxVoltageStepSoc; // In mV(Q2) Max voltage step that SMU will request. Multiple steps are taken if voltage change exceeds this value.
@@ -728,10 +729,10 @@ typedef struct {
uint32_t BoardVoltageCoeffB; // decode by /1000
uint32_t BoardReserved[7];
+ );
// Padding for MMHUB - do not modify this
uint32_t MmHubPadding[8]; // SMU internal use
-
} PPTable_t;
Where they end seems known as well (the padding switches from a "Board"
to "MmHub" prefix at exactly the matching size).
So, given that these regions are already known by the export tool, how
about just updating the export tool to emit a struct there? I imagine
the problem with this would be the identifier churn needed, but that's
entirely mechanical.
However, I'm curious about another aspect of these regions: they are,
by definition, the same. Why isn't there a single struct describing
them already, given the existing redundancy? For example, look at the
member names: maxvoltagestepgfx vs MaxVoltageStepGfx. Why aren't these
the same? And then why aren't they described separately?
Fixing that would cut down on the redundancy here, and in the renaming,
you can fix the identifiers as well. It should be straight forward to
write a Coccinelle script to do this renaming for you after extracting
the structure.
The driver_if_* files updates are frequent and it is error prone to manually
group them each time we pick them for any update.
Why are these structs updated? It looks like they're specifically
versioned, and aren't expected to change (i.e. v4.5, v4.6, v4.10, etc).
Our usage of memcpy in this way is restricted only to a very few places.
True, there's 1 per PPTable_t duplication. With a proper struct, you
wouldn't even need a memcpy().
Instead of the existing:
memcpy(smc_pptable->I2cControllers, smc_dpm_table_v4_7->I2cControllers,
sizeof(*smc_dpm_table_v4_7) - sizeof(smc_dpm_table_v4_7->table_header));
or my proposed:
memcpy(&smc_pptable->v4, &smc_dpm_table_v4_7->dpm_info,
sizeof(smc_dpm_table_v4_7->dpm_info));
you could just have:
smc_pptable->v4 = smc_dpm_table_v4_7->dpm_info;
since they'd be explicitly the same type.
That looks like a much cleaner solution to this. It greatly improves
readability, reduces the redundancy in the headers, and should be a
simple mechanical refactoring.
Oh my, I just noticed append_vbios_pptable() in
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/hwmgr/vega12_processpptables.c
which does an open-coded assignment of the entire PPTable_t, including
padding, and, apparently, the i2c address twice:
ppsmc_pptable->Vr2_I2C_address = smc_dpm_table.Vr2_I2C_address;
ppsmc_pptable->Vr2_I2C_address = smc_dpm_table.Vr2_I2C_address;
As another option - is it possible to have a helper function/macro like
memcpy_fortify() which takes the extra arguments and does the extra compile
time checks? We will use the helper whenever we have such kind of usage.
I'd rather avoid special cases just for this, especially when the code
here is already doing a couple things we try to avoid in the rest of
the kernel (i.e. open coded redundant struct contents, etc).
If something mechanically produced append_vbios_pptable() above, I bet
we can get rid of the memcpy()s entirely and save a lot of code doing a
member-to-member assignment.
What do you think?
Hi Kees,
Will give a background on why there are multiple headers and why it's
structured this way. That may help to better understand this arrangement.
This code is part of driver for AMD GPUs. These GPUs get to the
consumers through multiple channels - AMD designs a few boards with
those, there are add-in-board partners like ASRock, Sapphire etc. who
take these ASICs and design their own boards, and others like OEM
vendors who have their own design for boards in their laptops.
As you have noticed, this particular section in the structure carries
information categorized as 'BOARD PARAMETERS'. Since there are multiple
vendors designing their own boards, this gives the option to customize
the parameters based on their board design.
There are a few components in AMD GPUs which are interested in these
board parameters main ones being - Video BIOS (VBIOS) and power
management firmware (PMFW). There needs to be a single source where a
vendor can input the information and that is decided as VBIOS. VBIOS
carries different data tables which carry other information also (some
of which are used by driver), so this information is added as a separate
data table in VBIOS. A board vendor can customize the VBIOS build with
this information.
The data tables (and some other interfaces with driver) carried by VBIOS
are published in this header - drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/atomfirmware.h
There are multiple families of AMD GPUs like Navi10, Arcturus, Aldebaran
etc. and the board specific details change with different families of
GPUs. However, VBIOS team publishes a common header file for these GPUs
and any difference in data tables (between GPU families) is maintained
through a versioning scheme. Thus there are different tables like
atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_5, atom_smc_dpm_info_v4_6 etc. which are relevant
for a particular family of GPUs.
With newer VBIOS versions and new GPU families, there could be changes
in the structs defined in atomfirmware.h and we pick the header accordingly.
As mentioned earlier, one other user of the board specific information
is power management firmware (PMFW). PMFW design is isolated from the
actual source of board information. In addition to board specific
information, PMFW needs some other info as well and driver is the one
responsible for passing this info to the firmware. PMFW gives an
interface header to driver providing the different struct formats which
are used in driver<->PMFW interactions. Unlike VBIOS, these interface
headers are defined per family of ASICs and those are
smu11_driver_if_arcturus.h, smu11_driver_if_* etc. (in short driver_if_*
files). Like VBIOS, with newer firmware versions, there could be
changes in the different structs defined in these headers and we pick
them accordingly.
Driver acts the intermediary between actual source of board information
(VBIOS) and PMFW. So what is being done here is driver picks the board
information from VBIOS table, strips the VBIOS table header and passes
it as part of PPTable_t which defines all the information that is needed
by PMFW from driver for enabling dynamic power management.
In summary, these headers are not generated and not owned by driver.
They define the interfaces of two different components with driver, and
are consumed by those components themselves. A simple change to group
the information as a separate structure involves changes in multiple
components like VBIOS, PMFW, software used to build VBIOS, Windows
driver etc.
In all practical cases, this code is harmless as these structs (in both
headers) are well defined for a specific family of GPUs. There is always
a reserve field defined with some extra bytes so that the size is not
affected if at all new fields need to be added.
The patch now makes us to modify the headers for Linux through
script/manually whenever we pick them, and TBH that strips off the
coherency with the original source. The other option is field by field
copy. Now we use memcpy as a safe bet so that a new field added later
taking some reserve space is not missed even if we miss a header update.
Thanks,
Lijo