From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.8177.1675423207026079590 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 03:20:07 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: arm.com, ip: 217.140.110.172, mailfrom: sudeep.holla@arm.com) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0A5C14; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BFAF3F8D6; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:20:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:20:03 +0000 From: "Sudeep Holla" To: Pierre Gondois Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Leif Lindholm , Ard Biesheuvel , Girish Pathak , Jeff Brasen , Sami Mujawar Subject: Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg/ArmScmiDxe: Fix the calculation of RequiredArraySize in ClockDescribeRates() Message-ID: <20230203112003.fstpmkec5w7zcq6z@bogus> References: <20230202143015.3066988-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 12:10:38PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote: > Hello Sudeep, > > On 2/2/23 15:30, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > As per the SCMI specification, section CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES mentions that > > the value of num_rates_flags[11:0] in the response must be 3 if the return > > format is the triplet. Due to the buggy firmware, this was not noticed for > > long time. The firmware is now fixed resulting in ClockDescribeRates() to > > fail with "Buffer Too Small" error as the RequiredArraySize gets miscalculated > > as 72 instead of 24. > > > > Fix the issue by reusing the logic for both the return format which must > > work if num_rates_flags has correct value as expected from the specification. > > > > Cc: Pierre Gondois > > Cc: Girish Pathak > > Cc: Jeff Brasen > > Reported-by: Sami Mujawar > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > > --- > > ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmScmiDxe/ScmiClockProtocol.c | 7 +------ > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > Hi All, > > > > Sorry for the resend, I hadn't subscribed before so resending after the > > subscription. > > > > Regards, > > Sudeep > > > > diff --git a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmScmiDxe/ScmiClockProtocol.c b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmScmiDxe/ScmiClockProtocol.c > > index 12a7e6df5d43..1412717bc227 100644 > > --- a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmScmiDxe/ScmiClockProtocol.c > > +++ b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmScmiDxe/ScmiClockProtocol.c > > @@ -236,12 +236,7 @@ ClockDescribeRates ( > > *TotalRates = NUM_RATES (DescribeRates->NumRatesFlags) > > + NUM_REMAIN_RATES (DescribeRates->NumRatesFlags); > > - if (*Format == ScmiClockRateFormatDiscrete) { > > - RequiredArraySize = (*TotalRates) * sizeof (UINT64); > > - } else { > > - // We need to return triplet of 64 bit value for each rate > > - RequiredArraySize = (*TotalRates) * 3 * sizeof (UINT64); > > - } > > + RequiredArraySize = (*TotalRates) * sizeof (UINT64); > > if (RequiredArraySize > (*RateArraySize)) { > > *RateArraySize = RequiredArraySize; > > I think the following also needs to be modified: > """ > for (RateNo = 0; RateNo < NUM_RATES (DescribeRates->NumRatesFlags); RateNo++) { > // Linear clock rates from minimum to maximum in steps > // Minimum clock rate. > Rate = &DescribeRates->Rates[RateOffset++]; > RateArray[RateIndex].ContinuousRate.Min = > ConvertTo64Bit (Rate->Low, Rate->High); > > Rate = &DescribeRates->Rates[RateOffset++]; > // Maximum clock rate. > RateArray[RateIndex].ContinuousRate.Max = > ConvertTo64Bit (Rate->Low, Rate->High); > > Rate = &DescribeRates->Rates[RateOffset++]; > // Step. > RateArray[RateIndex++].ContinuousRate.Step = > ConvertTo64Bit (Rate->Low, Rate->High); > } > """ > Right, good catch. For some reason, I don't see any exceptions in release build :(. I will try the debug build and check. Thanks for the review. > > With the above loop removed: > Reviewed-by: Pierre Gondois > Tested-by: Pierre Gondois > Thanks! -- Regards, Sudeep