On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 08/05/2017 08:43 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2017 06:16 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/05/2017 05:58 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> Some arch's have trouble with unaligned accesses.  Technically
>>>>>>> EFI device-path structs should be byte aligned, and the next node
>>>>>>> in the path starts immediately after the previous.  Meaning that
>>>>>>> a pointer to an 'struct efi_device_path' is not necessarily word
>>>>>>> aligned.  See section 10.3.1 in v2.7 of UEFI spec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This causes problems not just for u-boot, but also most/all EFI
>>>>>>> payloads loaded by u-boot on these archs.  Fortunately the common
>>>>>>> practice for traversing a device path is to rely on the length
>>>>>>> field in the header, rather than the specified length of the
>>>>>>> particular device path type+subtype.  So the EFI_DP_PAD() macro
>>>>>>> will add the specified number of bytes to the tail of device path
>>>>>>> structs to pad them to word alignment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically this is non-compliant, BROKEN_UNALIGNED should *only*
>>>>>>> be defined on archs that cannot do unaligned accesses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if there are other arch's that need -DBROKEN_UNALIGNED
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark, this is untested but I think it should solve your crash on the
>>>>>>> Banana Pi.  Could you give it a try when you get a chance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  arch/arm/config.mk               |  2 +-
>>>>>>>  include/efi_api.h                | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>  lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c |  3 +++
>>>>>>>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/config.mk b/arch/arm/config.mk
>>>>>>> index 1a77779db4..067dc93a9d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/config.mk
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/config.mk
>>>>>>> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ LLVMS_RELFLAGS              := $(call 
>>>>>>> cc-option,-mllvm,) \
>>>>>>>                       $(call cc-option,-arm-use-movt=0,)
>>>>>>>  PLATFORM_RELFLAGS    += $(LLVM_RELFLAGS)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__ARM__
>>>>>>> +PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__ARM__ -DBROKEN_UNALIGNED
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have more then ARM. And other architectures also create exceptions
>>>>>> for unaligned access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate platform specific code. It should not be used outside /arch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To play it save you should not use _packed at all!
>>>>>> Use memcpy to transfer between aligned and unaligned memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> except for reasons I explained in the thread on the patch that added
>>>>> the __packed in the first place.  Sorry, this is ugly but we have to
>>>>> do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> -R
>>>>
>>>> According to the UEFI standard the nodes in paths are not to be assumed
>>>> to be aligned.
>>>>
>>>> So even if you use padding bytes in paths that you pass to the EFI
>>>> application you should not expect that the EFI application does the
>>>> same. Expect the EFI application either to remove them or send new nodes
>>>> without padding.
>>>>
>>>> To the idea of padding bytes and __packed does not make sense.
>>>
>>> Ok, to be fair, you are right about device-paths passed too u-boot.
>>> On BROKEN_UNALIGNED archs, we should sanitise with a copy to an
>>> aligned device-path in *addition* to what I proposed.  I can make a
>>> patch to add a helper to do this a bit later.
>>
>> so thinking about this a bit, I have two options in mind:
>>
>>  + efi_dp_sanitize() + efi_dp_free() helpers that are no-ops on
>>    archs that can do unaligned access, but efi_dp_sanitize() always
>>    allocates and copies on BROKEN_UNALIGNED archs and efi_dp_free()
>>    always free's on BROKEN_UNALIGNED archs, even if the dp passed
>>    from efi payload doesn't require it.
>>
>>  + efi_dp_sanitize() that is no-op on archs that can do unaligned
>>    access but only allocates/copies when passed a device path that
>>    would result in unaligned access, plus hook some mechanism to
>>    auto-free on EFI_EXIT().. which is slightly tricky w/ nesting of
>>    efi calls, but not impossible and at least avoids the problem
>>    of missing calls to free the dup'd device-path.. which is the
>>    sort of leak I might miss since I'm not using EFI_LOADER on any
>>    BROKEN_UNALIGNED arch
>>
>> anyone who cares about armv7 + efi have a preference between always
>> doing an extra alloc+copy+free vs EFI_EXIT() magic?
>>
>
> Please, go for the simplest code.

well, the source of my question was there are two definitions of
"simplest" here, ie "simplest to use" and "simplest helpers".. I'm
mostly worried about future patches that use the helpers introducing
leaks.  But actually I think a reasonable middle ground is "simplest
helpers plus always make the helpers not no-ops for DEBUG builds"..

> I cannot imagine that copying takes more than 10ms for starting grub on
> any architecture. So the user will not notice it anyway.
> Assume every architecture requiring alignment for which you do not have
> proof of the contrary.
>
> Even on ARM64 there are op codes that fail without alignment.

iirc the restrictions where mostly about device memory, and atomics.
Which should not apply here.  (And we have aarch64 servers in
production with grub, which doesn't take any protections about
unaligned device-path nodes, using non u-boot EFI implementations.  So
maybe that counts as proof to the contrary ;-))

BR,
-R
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to