From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BA931EA7A; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709038772; cv=none; b=m7Y+X6G1gmpWdP278j2AJps7Rf2HsPwFIfhdLHEDVDBVeRUdd3wxHlD9YN1ca9JIpdx8lgu18A6CcPm1i9TlxtN41TUUWS8HzXWIEF8Icgi6UD3lXKSnW3bI5KwzWOQc8RrxWFddH2/HetOKlZKVuRh0kYIHc7WKIAco6nC3vpM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709038772; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wiU20DrGryX1NTjOXTqiYvpUtgqll5ToH7wjB9oLF/U=; h=From:Date:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Km8TpQ3ehAGqEqHYy5Ss+yDLTu8/5fbJZo4IegOU0vJ+qIM9sOdHafHxv4gADgZYJcbwFz61129XVSmnuqAMV7XiYnGwDKWILEmn1pnUFySrewUe+JEdzpcCvDGOgOJ72fJ4bLnHE9xjLf+EVat9E5/8hcHFVc+36q7ebdr6Z4I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=NjK9FRpX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="NjK9FRpX" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709038772; x=1740574772; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=wiU20DrGryX1NTjOXTqiYvpUtgqll5ToH7wjB9oLF/U=; b=NjK9FRpXMWjumcgOIW4lCUcGOF6zWTd9MAHqGhslhZwKImFgPBlFN6xb kVRqBhHLXZosVhqfRjzpG+MyEPgbF1/IWjDJP2p+mdYSJTYaGLTew+ZZY stMCn5Dms4Vg8eB08dErr3hUQlvdplTI36Hfm6IBCyErI1JpM8xMweyY0 ALAeJWyYAOm6A9BV/KAB+BSoMVBtaNBngLCrcNiqs4VekTbTYW+JSg5uk mtM3jdWNGURMZyMHkjCNZ4gO1qNXMeH/X2jz1xp8Ng4rxIzszXN3ft9Rn NzKUuKi4eD+sCli/8URE6S7bKEj/eUqji0nUOPtDcotGoJmGVGOEThtO2 w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10996"; a="25840411" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,187,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="25840411" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Feb 2024 04:59:31 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,187,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="7456140" Received: from ijarvine-desk1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.246.34.61]) by orviesa006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Feb 2024 04:59:27 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:59:23 +0200 (EET) To: Armin Wolf cc: Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com, Mika Westerberg , sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, Hans de Goede , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] platform/x86/amd/pmf: Do not use readl() for policy buffer access In-Reply-To: <20240223163901.13504-2-W_Armin@gmx.de> Message-ID: References: <20240223163901.13504-1-W_Armin@gmx.de> <20240223163901.13504-2-W_Armin@gmx.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Armin Wolf wrote: > The policy buffer is allocated using normal memory allocation > functions, so readl() should not be used on it. > > Use get_unaligned_le32() instead. > > Compile-tested only. > > Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf > --- > drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c > index 16973bebf55f..3220b6580270 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include "pmf.h" > > #define MAX_TEE_PARAM 4 > @@ -249,8 +250,8 @@ static int amd_pmf_start_policy_engine(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev) > u32 cookie, length; > int res; > > - cookie = readl(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET); > - length = readl(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_LEN); > + cookie = get_unaligned_le32(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET); > + length = get_unaligned_le32(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_LEN); I don't understand you need _unaligned_ here, the offsets should be dword aligned, no? #define POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET 0x10 #define POLICY_COOKIE_LEN 0x14 -- i.