From: "Gaurav Jain" <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>
To: "Wu, Hao A" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>,
"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
"afish@apple.com" <afish@apple.com>,
"lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>,
"leif@nuviainc.com" <leif@nuviainc.com>,
"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: "Wang, Jian J" <jian.j.wang@intel.com>,
"Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] RE: [edk2-stable202002][edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:04:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB7PR04MB4091E8DF36C3A35174445205E7EC0@DB7PR04MB4091.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B80AF82E9BFB8E4FBD8C89DA810C6A093C9AA3B1@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
> I think the above check for 'Attributes' can be dropped.
> I found that the implementation of the PciIoGetBarAttributes() function does not
> expose any configurable attributes. So the logic can fall through to the ASSERT
> (for DEBUG images) and then returns EFI_UNSUPPORTED.
I agree that PciIoGetBarAttributes() function sets *Supports as 0.
But In SCT Test for SetBarAttributes, there is a test case for Unsupported Attribute which expects EFI_UNSUPPORTED. If I drop this check, ASSERT will come, which is not expected.
Can we keep check for 'Attributes'?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 6:53 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>; Gao, Liming
> <liming.gao@intel.com>; afish@apple.com; lersek@redhat.com;
> leif@nuviainc.com; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Ard
> Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; Pankaj Bansal
> <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>
> Subject: [EXT] RE: [edk2-stable202002][edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1]
> MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
>
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> A couple of inline comments below. Please help to handle them in the next
> version of patch.
> With them addressed,
> Reviewed-by: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
>
>
> Hello Liming and Stewards,
>
> I would like to confirm with you for whether the patch should catch the
> upcoming stable tag.
>
> My personal take is that the patch is more like a code refinement rather than a
> bug fix.
>
> Could you help to make a final call for this one? Thanks in advance.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hao Wu
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of
> > Gaurav Jain
> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 11:40 PM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > Cc: Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; Ni, Ray; Ard Biesheuvel; Pankaj Bansal;
> > Gaurav Jain
> > Subject: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts
> > in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
> >
> > ASSERT in PollMem_Conf, CopyMem_Conf, SetBarAttributes_Conf
> > Conformance Test.
> > SCT Test expect return as Invalid Parameter or Unsupported.
> > Added Checks for Function Parameters.
> > return Invalid or Unsupported if Check fails.
> >
> > Added Checks in PciIoPollIo(), PciIoIoRead()
> > PciIoIoWrite()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Notes:
> > v2
> > - Reverted ASSERT(FALSE) code.
> > - Added Checks for Width, BarIndex, Buffer,
> > Address range in PciIoIoRead, PciIoIoWrite.
> > - Added Checks for Width, BarIndex, Result,
> > Address range in PciIoPollIo, PciIoPollMem,
> > PciIoCopyMem.
> > - Added Checks for Attributes, BarIndex,
> > Address range in PciIoSetBarAttributes.
> >
> > .../NonDiscoverablePciDeviceIo.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 180 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > index 2d55c9699322..4dd804356021 100644
> > ---
> > a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > +++
> > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > @@ -93,6 +93,35 @@ PciIoPollMem (
> > OUT UINT64 *Result
> > )
> > {
> > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > + UINTN Count;
> > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > +
> > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Result == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > + Count = 1;
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > + (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> > @@ -126,6 +155,35 @@ PciIoPollIo (
> > OUT UINT64 *Result
> > )
> > {
> > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > + UINTN Count;
> > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > +
> > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Result == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > + Count = 1;
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > + (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> > @@ -396,6 +454,33 @@ PciIoIoRead (
> > IN OUT VOID *Buffer
> > )
> > {
> > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > +
> > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
>
>
> For PciIoIoRead(), I think enum values smaller than EfiPciIoWidthMaximum are
> all valid. The above check seems to strict.
Will address this in v3.
>
>
> > +
> > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Buffer == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > + (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> > @@ -425,6 +510,33 @@ PciIoIoWrite (
> > IN OUT VOID *Buffer
> > )
> > {
> > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > +
> > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
>
>
> For PciIoIoWrite(), I think enum values smaller than EfiPciIoWidthMaximum are
> all valid. The above check seems to strict.
Will address this in v3.
>
>
> > +
> > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Buffer == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > + (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> > @@ -556,6 +668,40 @@ PciIoCopyMem (
> > IN UINTN Count
> > )
> > {
> > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *DestDesc;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *SrcDesc;
> > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > +
> > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (DestBarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR ||
> > + SrcBarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, DestBarIndex, &DestDesc); if
> > + (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (DestOffset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > DestDesc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, SrcBarIndex, &SrcDesc); if
> > + (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (SrcOffset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > SrcDesc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> > @@ -1414,6 +1560,40 @@ PciIoSetBarAttributes (
> > IN OUT UINT64 *Length
> > )
> > {
> > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > + EFI_PCI_IO_PROTOCOL_WIDTH Width;
> > + UINTN Count;
> > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > +
> > + #define DEV_SUPPORTED_ATTRIBUTES \
> > + (EFI_PCI_DEVICE_ENABLE |
> > EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE)
> > +
> > + if ((Attributes & (~DEV_SUPPORTED_ATTRIBUTES)) != 0) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
>
>
> I think the above check for 'Attributes' can be dropped.
> I found that the implementation of the PciIoGetBarAttributes() function does not
> expose any configurable attributes. So the logic can fall through to the ASSERT
> (for DEBUG images) and then returns EFI_UNSUPPORTED.
>
> Best Regards,
> HaoWu
>
>
> > +
> > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Offset == NULL || Length == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > + Width = EfiPciIoWidthUint8;
> > + Count = (UINT32) *Length;
> > +
> > + Status = GetBarResource(Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > + (Status)) {
> > + return Status;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (*Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > + }
> > +
> > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-24 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-21 1:23 [edk2-stable202002][edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test Wu, Hao A
2020-02-24 7:04 ` Gaurav Jain [this message]
2020-02-24 8:26 ` [EXT] " Wu, Hao A
2020-02-24 8:42 ` Gaurav Jain
2020-02-24 12:50 ` Wu, Hao A
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DB7PR04MB4091E8DF36C3A35174445205E7EC0@DB7PR04MB4091.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox