| Message ID | 20230116193722.50360-1-ahalaney@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] net: stmmac: enable all safety features by default | expand |
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:37:23 -0600 Andrew Halaney wrote: > I've been working on a newer Qualcomm platform (sa8540p-ride) which has > a variant of dwmac5 in it. This patch is something Ning stumbled on when > adding some support for it downstream, and has been in my queue as I try > and get some support ready for review on list upstream. > > Since it isn't really related to the particular hardware I decided to > pop it on list now. Please let me know if instead of enabling by default > (which the original implementation did and is why I went that route) a > message like "Safety features detected but not enabled in software" is > preferred and platforms are skipped unless they opt-in for enablement. Could you repost and CC Wong Vee Khee, and maybe some other Intel folks who have been touching stmmac recently? They are probably the best to comment / review.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:43:48PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:37:23 -0600 Andrew Halaney wrote: > > I've been working on a newer Qualcomm platform (sa8540p-ride) which has > > a variant of dwmac5 in it. This patch is something Ning stumbled on when > > adding some support for it downstream, and has been in my queue as I try > > and get some support ready for review on list upstream. > > > > Since it isn't really related to the particular hardware I decided to > > pop it on list now. Please let me know if instead of enabling by default > > (which the original implementation did and is why I went that route) a > > message like "Safety features detected but not enabled in software" is > > preferred and platforms are skipped unless they opt-in for enablement. > > Could you repost and CC Wong Vee Khee, and maybe some other Intel folks > who have been touching stmmac recently? They are probably the best to > comment / review. > Shoot, yes thank you I intended to do! Will resend. - Andrew
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c index 9c2d40f853ed..413f66017219 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c @@ -186,11 +186,25 @@ static void dwmac5_handle_dma_err(struct net_device *ndev, int dwmac5_safety_feat_config(void __iomem *ioaddr, unsigned int asp, struct stmmac_safety_feature_cfg *safety_feat_cfg) { + struct stmmac_safety_feature_cfg all_safety_feats = { + .tsoee = 1, + .mrxpee = 1, + .mestee = 1, + .mrxee = 1, + .mtxee = 1, + .epsi = 1, + .edpp = 1, + .prtyen = 1, + .tmouten = 1, + }; u32 value; if (!asp) return -EINVAL; + if (!safety_feat_cfg) + safety_feat_cfg = &all_safety_feats; + /* 1. Enable Safety Features */ value = readl(ioaddr + MTL_ECC_CONTROL); value |= MEEAO; /* MTL ECC Error Addr Status Override */
In the original implementation of dwmac5 commit 8bf993a5877e ("net: stmmac: Add support for DWMAC5 and implement Safety Features") all safety features were enabled by default. Later it seems some implementations didn't have support for all the features, so in commit 5ac712dcdfef ("net: stmmac: enable platform specific safety features") the safety_feat_cfg structure was added to the callback and defined for some platforms to selectively enable these safety features. The problem is that only certain platforms were given that software support. If the automotive safety package bit is set in the hardware features register the safety feature callback is called for the platform, and for platforms that didn't get a safety_feat_cfg defined this results in the following NULL pointer dereference: [ 7.933303] Call trace: [ 7.935812] dwmac5_safety_feat_config+0x20/0x170 [stmmac] [ 7.941455] __stmmac_open+0x16c/0x474 [stmmac] [ 7.946117] stmmac_open+0x38/0x70 [stmmac] [ 7.950414] __dev_open+0x100/0x1dc [ 7.954006] __dev_change_flags+0x18c/0x204 [ 7.958297] dev_change_flags+0x24/0x6c [ 7.962237] do_setlink+0x2b8/0xfa4 [ 7.965827] __rtnl_newlink+0x4ec/0x840 [ 7.969766] rtnl_newlink+0x50/0x80 [ 7.973353] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x12c/0x374 [ 7.977557] netlink_rcv_skb+0x5c/0x130 [ 7.981500] rtnetlink_rcv+0x18/0x2c [ 7.985172] netlink_unicast+0x2e8/0x340 [ 7.989197] netlink_sendmsg+0x1a8/0x420 [ 7.993222] ____sys_sendmsg+0x218/0x280 [ 7.997249] ___sys_sendmsg+0xac/0x100 [ 8.001103] __sys_sendmsg+0x84/0xe0 [ 8.004776] __arm64_sys_sendmsg+0x24/0x30 [ 8.008983] invoke_syscall+0x48/0x114 [ 8.012840] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xcc/0xec [ 8.017665] do_el0_svc+0x38/0xb0 [ 8.021071] el0_svc+0x2c/0x84 [ 8.024212] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xf4/0x120 [ 8.028598] el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194 Go back to the original behavior, if the automotive safety package is found to be supported in hardware enable all the features unless safety_feat_cfg is passed in saying this particular platform only supports a subset of the features. Fixes: 5ac712dcdfef ("net: stmmac: enable platform specific safety features") Reported-by: Ning Cai <ncai@quicinc.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> --- I've been working on a newer Qualcomm platform (sa8540p-ride) which has a variant of dwmac5 in it. This patch is something Ning stumbled on when adding some support for it downstream, and has been in my queue as I try and get some support ready for review on list upstream. Since it isn't really related to the particular hardware I decided to pop it on list now. Please let me know if instead of enabling by default (which the original implementation did and is why I went that route) a message like "Safety features detected but not enabled in software" is preferred and platforms are skipped unless they opt-in for enablement. Thanks, Andrew drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)