On 4/19/2023 10:02, John Harrison wrote:
On 4/18/2023 16:24, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
Typo doplicate in patch title
On 4/14/2023 5:57 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com>
It was noticed that duplicte entries in the firmware table could cause
typo duplicte
an infinite loop in the firmware loading code if that entry failed to
load. Duplicate entries are a bug anyway and so should never happen.
Ensure they don't by tweaking the table validation code to reject
duplicates.
Here you're not really rejecting anything though, just printing an
error (and even that only if the SELFTEST kconfig is selected). This
would allow our CI to catch issues with patches sent to our ML, but
IIRC the reported bug was on a kernel fork. We could disable the FW
loading is the table for that particular blob type is in an invalid
state, as it wouldn't be safe to attempt a load in that case anyway.
The validation code is rejecting duplicates. Whether the driver loads
or not after a failed validation is another matter.
I was basically assuming that CI will fail on the error message and
thus prevent such code ever being merged. But yeah, I guess we don't
run CI on backports to stable kernels and such. Although, I would hope
that anyone pushing patches to a stable kernel would run some testing
on it first!
Any thoughts on a good way to fail the load? We don't want to just
pretend that firmware is not wanted/required on the platform and just
load the i915 module without the firmware. Also, what about the longer
plan of moving the validation to a selftest. You can't fail the load
at all then.
Actually, forgot we already have a INTEL_UC_FIRMWARE_ERROR status. That
works fine for aborting the load. So just go with that and drop the plan
to move to a selftest?
John.
John.
For full m/m/p files, that can be done by simply tweaking the patch
level check to reject matching values. For reduced version entries,
the filename itself must be compared.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c | 27
+++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
index c589782467265..44829247ef6bc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc_fw.c
@@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static void validate_fw_table_type(struct
drm_i915_private *i915, enum intel_uc_
{
const struct uc_fw_platform_requirement *fw_blobs;
u32 fw_count;
- int i;
+ int i, j;
if (type >= ARRAY_SIZE(blobs_all)) {
drm_err(&i915->drm, "No blob array for %s\n",
intel_uc_fw_type_repr(type));
@@ -334,6 +334,27 @@ static void validate_fw_table_type(struct
drm_i915_private *i915, enum intel_uc_
/* make sure the list is ordered as expected */
for (i = 1; i < fw_count; i++) {
+ /* Versionless file names must be unique per platform: */
+ for (j = i + 1; j < fw_count; j++) {
+ /* Same platform? */
+ if (fw_blobs[i].p != fw_blobs[j].p)
+ continue;
+
+ if (fw_blobs[i].blob.path != fw_blobs[j].blob.path)
+ continue;
+
+ drm_err(&i915->drm, "Diplicaate %s blobs: %s r%u
%s%d.%d.%d [%s] matches %s r%u %s%d.%d.%d [%s]\n",
Typo Diplicaate
Daniele
+ intel_uc_fw_type_repr(type),
+ intel_platform_name(fw_blobs[j].p), fw_blobs[j].rev,
+ fw_blobs[j].blob.legacy ? "L" : "v",
+ fw_blobs[j].blob.major, fw_blobs[j].blob.minor,
+ fw_blobs[j].blob.patch, fw_blobs[j].blob.path,
+ intel_platform_name(fw_blobs[i].p), fw_blobs[i].rev,
+ fw_blobs[i].blob.legacy ? "L" : "v",
+ fw_blobs[i].blob.major, fw_blobs[i].blob.minor,
+ fw_blobs[i].blob.patch, fw_blobs[i].blob.path);
+ }
+
/* Next platform is good: */
if (fw_blobs[i].p < fw_blobs[i - 1].p)
continue;
@@ -377,8 +398,8 @@ static void validate_fw_table_type(struct
drm_i915_private *i915, enum intel_uc_
if (fw_blobs[i].blob.minor != fw_blobs[i - 1].blob.minor)
goto bad;
- /* Patch versions must be in order: */
- if (fw_blobs[i].blob.patch <= fw_blobs[i - 1].blob.patch)
+ /* Patch versions must be in order and unique: */
+ if (fw_blobs[i].blob.patch < fw_blobs[i - 1].blob.patch)
continue;
bad:
