[PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[Douglas Anderson]

This reverts commit 7bd6680b47fa4cd53ee1047693c09825e212a6f5.

When booting a sc7180-trogdor based device on mainline, I see errors
that look like this:

 qcom_scm firmware:scm: Assign memory protection call failed -22
 qcom_rmtfs_mem 94600000.memory: assign memory failed
 qcom_rmtfs_mem: probe of 94600000.memory failed with error -22

The device still boots OK, but WiFi doesn't work.

The failure only seems to happen when
CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON=y. When I don't have that set then
everything is peachy. Presumably something about the extra
initialization disagrees with the change to drop cache invalidation.

Fixes: 7bd6680b47fa ("Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()""")
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---

 arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
index 3cb101e8cb29..5240f6acad64 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
@@ -36,7 +36,22 @@ void arch_dma_prep_coherent(struct page *page, size_t size)
 {
 	unsigned long start = (unsigned long)page_address(page);
 
-	dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
+	/*
+	 * The architecture only requires a clean to the PoC here in order to
+	 * meet the requirements of the DMA API. However, some vendors (i.e.
+	 * Qualcomm) abuse the DMA API for transferring buffers from the
+	 * non-secure to the secure world, resetting the system if a non-secure
+	 * access shows up after the buffer has been transferred:
+	 *
+	 * https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221114110329.68413-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org
+	 *
+	 * Using clean+invalidate appears to make this issue less likely, but
+	 * the drivers themselves still need fixing as the CPU could issue a
+	 * speculative read from the buffer via the linear mapping irrespective
+	 * of the cache maintenance we use. Once the drivers are fixed, we can
+	 * relax this to a clean operation.
+	 */
+	dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA
-- 
2.41.0.162.gfafddb0af9-goog

Re: [PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[Robin Murphy]

On 2023-06-15 00:59, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> This reverts commit 7bd6680b47fa4cd53ee1047693c09825e212a6f5.
> 
> When booting a sc7180-trogdor based device on mainline, I see errors
> that look like this:
> 
>   qcom_scm firmware:scm: Assign memory protection call failed -22
>   qcom_rmtfs_mem 94600000.memory: assign memory failed
>   qcom_rmtfs_mem: probe of 94600000.memory failed with error -22
> 
> The device still boots OK, but WiFi doesn't work.
> 
> The failure only seems to happen when
> CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON=y. When I don't have that set then
> everything is peachy. Presumably something about the extra
> initialization disagrees with the change to drop cache invalidation.

AFAICS init_on_alloc essentially just adds __GFP_ZERO to the page 
allocation. This should make no difference to a DMA allocation given 
that dma_alloc_attrs explicitly zeros its allocation anyway. However... 
for the non-coherent case, the DMA API's memset will be done through the 
non-cacheable remap, while __GFP_ZERO can leave behind cached zeros for 
the linear map alias. Thus what I assume must be happening here is that 
"DMA" from the firmware is still making cacheable accesses to the buffer 
and getting those zeros instead of whatever actual data which was 
subsequently written non-cacheably direct to RAM. So either the firmware 
still needs fixing to make non-cacheable accesses, or the SCM driver 
needs to correctly describe it as coherent.

Thanks,
Robin.

> Fixes: 7bd6680b47fa ("Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()""")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> 
>   arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> index 3cb101e8cb29..5240f6acad64 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,22 @@ void arch_dma_prep_coherent(struct page *page, size_t size)
>   {
>   	unsigned long start = (unsigned long)page_address(page);
>   
> -	dcache_clean_poc(start, start + size);
> +	/*
> +	 * The architecture only requires a clean to the PoC here in order to
> +	 * meet the requirements of the DMA API. However, some vendors (i.e.
> +	 * Qualcomm) abuse the DMA API for transferring buffers from the
> +	 * non-secure to the secure world, resetting the system if a non-secure
> +	 * access shows up after the buffer has been transferred:
> +	 *
> +	 * https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221114110329.68413-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org
> +	 *
> +	 * Using clean+invalidate appears to make this issue less likely, but
> +	 * the drivers themselves still need fixing as the CPU could issue a
> +	 * speculative read from the buffer via the linear mapping irrespective
> +	 * of the cache maintenance we use. Once the drivers are fixed, we can
> +	 * relax this to a clean operation.
> +	 */
> +	dcache_clean_inval_poc(start, start + size);
>   }
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA

Re: [PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 3:13 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-06-15 00:59, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > This reverts commit 7bd6680b47fa4cd53ee1047693c09825e212a6f5.
> >
> > When booting a sc7180-trogdor based device on mainline, I see errors
> > that look like this:
> >
> >   qcom_scm firmware:scm: Assign memory protection call failed -22
> >   qcom_rmtfs_mem 94600000.memory: assign memory failed
> >   qcom_rmtfs_mem: probe of 94600000.memory failed with error -22
> >
> > The device still boots OK, but WiFi doesn't work.
> >
> > The failure only seems to happen when
> > CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON=y. When I don't have that set then
> > everything is peachy. Presumably something about the extra
> > initialization disagrees with the change to drop cache invalidation.
>
> AFAICS init_on_alloc essentially just adds __GFP_ZERO to the page
> allocation.

Right, but it does so without `__GFP_ZERO` getting into the page
flags. That means that this removal of "__GFP_ZERO" in
dma_direct_alloc() doesn't actually remove the zeroing when
CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON IS USED:

  /* we always manually zero the memory once we are done */
  page = __dma_direct_alloc_pages(dev, size, gfp & ~__GFP_ZERO, true);


> This should make no difference to a DMA allocation given
> that dma_alloc_attrs explicitly zeros its allocation anyway. However...
> for the non-coherent case, the DMA API's memset will be done through the
> non-cacheable remap, while __GFP_ZERO can leave behind cached zeros for
> the linear map alias. Thus what I assume must be happening here is that
> "DMA" from the firmware is still making cacheable accesses to the buffer
> and getting those zeros instead of whatever actual data which was
> subsequently written non-cacheably direct to RAM. So either the firmware
> still needs fixing to make non-cacheable accesses, or the SCM driver
> needs to correctly describe it as coherent.

I'm a little confused, but that's pretty normal for me. :-P Looking at
the SCM driver, I see it doing the allocation in qcom_scm_assign_mem()
as:

  dma_alloc_coherent(__scm->dev, ptr_sz, &ptr_phys, GFP_KERNEL);

Isn't that the SCM driver describing it as coherent?

I guess the reason that the SCM driver is doing this is that it's
passing a chunk of memory to the firmware but it passes it to firmware
via a _physical_ address, not a virtual one. I guess this makes sense
to do when passing a chunk of memory to firmware since you wouldn't
want to pass the kernel's virtual address there...

Presumably the fact that the firmware gets a physical address means
that the firmware needs to map this address somehow itself. I can try
to dig up what the firmware is doing if needed (what attributes it
uses to map), but I guess the hope is that it shouldn't matter. As
long as the kernel can guarantee that the contents that it needs have
been flushed out to memory then I think we're supposed to be good,
right?

In any case, I dumped a stack crawl to try to show the path where the
init happens, since there are lots of conditionals. I see this:

 kernel_init_pages+0x68/0x6c
 post_alloc_hook+0x40/0x90
 prep_new_page+0x34/0x68
 get_page_from_freelist+0x894/0xe64
 __alloc_pages+0x12c/0xd24
 __dma_direct_alloc_pages+0x9c/0x170
 dma_direct_alloc+0x254/0x4bc
 dma_alloc_attrs+0xe4/0x1e4
 qcom_scm_assign_mem+0xb0/0x258


So looking at dma_direct_alloc(), I guess:

1. We call __dma_direct_alloc_pages() to allocate the page. We try to
turn off __GFP_ZERO but CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON overrides us.

2. As part of __dma_direct_alloc_pages(), we use the existing
(cachable) mapping of the page and write zeros.

3. The "remap" variable is set for arm64 so we call
arch_dma_prep_coherent(). That used to do a "clean and invalidate" but
now does just a "clean" and that's what broke me.


Talking out of my rear end, I guess the issue here might be that it
_does_ matter how the firmware maps this memory because it has to
match how the kernel has it mapped because if you map the same
physical memory twice then the attributes need to match. Maybe the old
"invalidate" just worked around this issue? If this wild guessing is
correct, maybe a more correct solution would be to simply unmap the
memory from the kernel before passing the physical address to the
firmware, if that's possible...



-Doug

Re: [PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[Robin Murphy]

On 2023-06-15 18:42, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 3:13 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-06-15 00:59, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>> This reverts commit 7bd6680b47fa4cd53ee1047693c09825e212a6f5.
>>>
>>> When booting a sc7180-trogdor based device on mainline, I see errors
>>> that look like this:
>>>
>>>    qcom_scm firmware:scm: Assign memory protection call failed -22
>>>    qcom_rmtfs_mem 94600000.memory: assign memory failed
>>>    qcom_rmtfs_mem: probe of 94600000.memory failed with error -22
>>>
>>> The device still boots OK, but WiFi doesn't work.
>>>
>>> The failure only seems to happen when
>>> CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON=y. When I don't have that set then
>>> everything is peachy. Presumably something about the extra
>>> initialization disagrees with the change to drop cache invalidation.
>>
>> AFAICS init_on_alloc essentially just adds __GFP_ZERO to the page
>> allocation.
> 
> Right, but it does so without `__GFP_ZERO` getting into the page
> flags. That means that this removal of "__GFP_ZERO" in
> dma_direct_alloc() doesn't actually remove the zeroing when
> CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON IS USED:
> 
>    /* we always manually zero the memory once we are done */
>    page = __dma_direct_alloc_pages(dev, size, gfp & ~__GFP_ZERO, true);
> 
> 
>> This should make no difference to a DMA allocation given
>> that dma_alloc_attrs explicitly zeros its allocation anyway. However...
>> for the non-coherent case, the DMA API's memset will be done through the
>> non-cacheable remap, while __GFP_ZERO can leave behind cached zeros for
>> the linear map alias. Thus what I assume must be happening here is that
>> "DMA" from the firmware is still making cacheable accesses to the buffer
>> and getting those zeros instead of whatever actual data which was
>> subsequently written non-cacheably direct to RAM. So either the firmware
>> still needs fixing to make non-cacheable accesses, or the SCM driver
>> needs to correctly describe it as coherent.
> 
> I'm a little confused, but that's pretty normal for me. :-P Looking at
> the SCM driver, I see it doing the allocation in qcom_scm_assign_mem()
> as:
> 
>    dma_alloc_coherent(__scm->dev, ptr_sz, &ptr_phys, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Isn't that the SCM driver describing it as coherent?

The name of the API means that the *buffer* is coherent, i.e. both the 
device and CPU can access it at any time without needing any special 
synchronisation. How that is achieved depends on the device - if it is 
capable of snooping caches (i.e. marked as "dma-coherent" in DT) then 
that coherency is provided by hardware and the allocator doesn't need to 
do anything special; otherwise, it achieves coherency by making the CPU 
accesses non-cacheable.

> I guess the reason that the SCM driver is doing this is that it's
> passing a chunk of memory to the firmware but it passes it to firmware
> via a _physical_ address, not a virtual one. I guess this makes sense
> to do when passing a chunk of memory to firmware since you wouldn't
> want to pass the kernel's virtual address there...

Correct.

> Presumably the fact that the firmware gets a physical address means
> that the firmware needs to map this address somehow itself. I can try
> to dig up what the firmware is doing if needed (what attributes it
> uses to map), but I guess the hope is that it shouldn't matter.

It absolutely matters. Linux has been told (by DT) that this device does 
not snoop caches, and therefore is acting on that information by using 
the non-cacheable remap. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, 
even when the "device" is actually firmware running on the same CPU - 
EL3 could well run with the MMU off, or just make a point of not 
accessing Non-Secure memory with cacheable attributes to avoid 
side-channels. However if in this case the SCM firmware *is* using 
cacheable attributes, as the symptoms would suggest, then either the 
firmware or the DT is wrong, and there is nothing Linux can do to 
completely fix that.

> As
> long as the kernel can guarantee that the contents that it needs have
> been flushed out to memory then I think we're supposed to be good,
> right?

Right, and that's what the cache clean does. What Linux *cannot* 
guarantee is that said contents don't subsequently get pulled back into 
a cache in a manner which would break coherency if anyone was actually 
looking at the cache rather than RAM.

> In any case, I dumped a stack crawl to try to show the path where the
> init happens, since there are lots of conditionals. I see this:
> 
>   kernel_init_pages+0x68/0x6c
>   post_alloc_hook+0x40/0x90
>   prep_new_page+0x34/0x68
>   get_page_from_freelist+0x894/0xe64
>   __alloc_pages+0x12c/0xd24
>   __dma_direct_alloc_pages+0x9c/0x170
>   dma_direct_alloc+0x254/0x4bc
>   dma_alloc_attrs+0xe4/0x1e4
>   qcom_scm_assign_mem+0xb0/0x258
> 
> 
> So looking at dma_direct_alloc(), I guess:
> 
> 1. We call __dma_direct_alloc_pages() to allocate the page. We try to
> turn off __GFP_ZERO but CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON overrides us.
> 
> 2. As part of __dma_direct_alloc_pages(), we use the existing
> (cachable) mapping of the page and write zeros.
> 
> 3. The "remap" variable is set for arm64 so we call
> arch_dma_prep_coherent(). That used to do a "clean and invalidate" but
> now does just a "clean" and that's what broke me.
> 
> 
> Talking out of my rear end, I guess the issue here might be that it
> _does_ matter how the firmware maps this memory because it has to
> match how the kernel has it mapped because if you map the same
> physical memory twice then the attributes need to match. Maybe the old
> "invalidate" just worked around this issue?

See the comment that the revert brings back - indeed it makes it less 
likely, but it's still possible that, say, the qcom_scm_assign_mem() 
thread gets preempted by an interrupt after dma_alloc_coherent() 
invalidates but before the buffer is completely written, and some access 
to an adjacent page during that period causes incomplete data to be 
prefetched back into the cache, and you're back to square one.

If Linux were actually expecting to get data back from the firmware, 
that would likely be even more broken (presuming it would use cacheable 
writes without a subsequent cache clean, given the implication that it's 
already doing cacheable reads without any maintenance of its own).

> If this wild guessing is
> correct, maybe a more correct solution would be to simply unmap the
> memory from the kernel before passing the physical address to the
> firmware, if that's possible...

Having now looked at the SCM driver, TBH it doesn't make an awful lot of 
sense for it to be using dma_alloc_coherent() there anyway - it's not 
using it as a coherent buffer, it's doing a one-off unidirectional 
transfer of a relatively small amount of data in a manner which seems to 
be exactly the usage model for the streaming DMA API. And I think using 
the latter would happen to mitigate this problem too - with streaming 
DMA you'd put the dma_map_page() call *after* all the buffer data has 
been written, right before the SMC call, so even with a coherency 
mismatch there would essentially be no opportunity for the caches to get 
out of sync.

Thanks,
Robin.

Re: [PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:04 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > Presumably the fact that the firmware gets a physical address means
> > that the firmware needs to map this address somehow itself. I can try
> > to dig up what the firmware is doing if needed (what attributes it
> > uses to map), but I guess the hope is that it shouldn't matter.
>
> It absolutely matters. Linux has been told (by DT) that this device does
> not snoop caches, and therefore is acting on that information by using
> the non-cacheable remap. There is nothing inherently wrong with that,
> even when the "device" is actually firmware running on the same CPU -
> EL3 could well run with the MMU off, or just make a point of not
> accessing Non-Secure memory with cacheable attributes to avoid
> side-channels. However if in this case the SCM firmware *is* using
> cacheable attributes, as the symptoms would suggest, then either the
> firmware or the DT is wrong, and there is nothing Linux can do to
> completely fix that.

With help from minecrell on IRC, we've found that firmare _does_ map
it as cachable.


> > If this wild guessing is
> > correct, maybe a more correct solution would be to simply unmap the
> > memory from the kernel before passing the physical address to the
> > firmware, if that's possible...
>
> Having now looked at the SCM driver, TBH it doesn't make an awful lot of
> sense for it to be using dma_alloc_coherent() there anyway - it's not
> using it as a coherent buffer, it's doing a one-off unidirectional
> transfer of a relatively small amount of data in a manner which seems to
> be exactly the usage model for the streaming DMA API. And I think using
> the latter would happen to mitigate this problem too - with streaming
> DMA you'd put the dma_map_page() call *after* all the buffer data has
> been written, right before the SMC call, so even with a coherency
> mismatch there would essentially be no opportunity for the caches to get
> out of sync.

Switching to the streaming API for this function _does_ work, but for
now I'm not going to make this switch and instead going to go with the
fix to add "dma-coherent" [1]. That seems like the more correct fix
instead of just a mitigation. If someone wants to switch the SCM
driver to the streaming APIs, that'd be cool too. On IRC, minecrell
pointed out that at least one function in this file,
qcom_scm_ice_set_key(), purposely didn't use the streaming APIs.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230615145253.1.Ic62daa649b47b656b313551d646c4de9a7da4bd4@changeid

-Doug

Re: [PATCH] Revert "Revert "Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"""

[Robin Murphy]

On 2023-06-15 23:00, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:04 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Presumably the fact that the firmware gets a physical address means
>>> that the firmware needs to map this address somehow itself. I can try
>>> to dig up what the firmware is doing if needed (what attributes it
>>> uses to map), but I guess the hope is that it shouldn't matter.
>>
>> It absolutely matters. Linux has been told (by DT) that this device does
>> not snoop caches, and therefore is acting on that information by using
>> the non-cacheable remap. There is nothing inherently wrong with that,
>> even when the "device" is actually firmware running on the same CPU -
>> EL3 could well run with the MMU off, or just make a point of not
>> accessing Non-Secure memory with cacheable attributes to avoid
>> side-channels. However if in this case the SCM firmware *is* using
>> cacheable attributes, as the symptoms would suggest, then either the
>> firmware or the DT is wrong, and there is nothing Linux can do to
>> completely fix that.
> 
> With help from minecrell on IRC, we've found that firmare _does_ map
> it as cachable.
> 
> 
>>> If this wild guessing is
>>> correct, maybe a more correct solution would be to simply unmap the
>>> memory from the kernel before passing the physical address to the
>>> firmware, if that's possible...
>>
>> Having now looked at the SCM driver, TBH it doesn't make an awful lot of
>> sense for it to be using dma_alloc_coherent() there anyway - it's not
>> using it as a coherent buffer, it's doing a one-off unidirectional
>> transfer of a relatively small amount of data in a manner which seems to
>> be exactly the usage model for the streaming DMA API. And I think using
>> the latter would happen to mitigate this problem too - with streaming
>> DMA you'd put the dma_map_page() call *after* all the buffer data has
>> been written, right before the SMC call, so even with a coherency
>> mismatch there would essentially be no opportunity for the caches to get
>> out of sync.
> 
> Switching to the streaming API for this function _does_ work, but for
> now I'm not going to make this switch and instead going to go with the
> fix to add "dma-coherent" [1]. That seems like the more correct fix
> instead of just a mitigation.

Sure, if you're confident that it will *always* use cacheable attributes 
for any shared-memory "DMA", that makes sense.

> If someone wants to switch the SCM
> driver to the streaming APIs, that'd be cool too. On IRC, minecrell
> pointed out that at least one function in this file,
> qcom_scm_ice_set_key(), purposely didn't use the streaming APIs.

The joke there being that memzero_explicit() on the non-cacheable alias 
means a cached copy of the key data could still be visible via the 
linear map address after the buffer is freed - especially if one can 
rely on TF-A having just pulled the whole lot into caches by reading it 
through a read-write-allocate MT_MEMORY mapping. Security is hard :)

Thanks,
Robin.

> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230615145253.1.Ic62daa649b47b656b313551d646c4de9a7da4bd4@changeid
> 
> -Doug