|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3] acpi/arm: relax MADT GICC entry length check to support newer ACPI revisions
On 1/9/26 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.01.2026 10:27, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:Newer ACPI revisions define the MADT GICC entry with Length = 82 bytes [1]. The current BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() check rejects entries whose length does not match the known values, which leads to: GICv3: No valid GICC entries exist. as observed on the AmpereOne platform. To fix this, import the logic from Linux commit 9eb1c92b47c7: The BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY check is a little too strict because it rejects MADT entries that don't match the currently known lengths. We should remove this restriction to avoid problems if the table length changes. Future code which might depend on additional fields should be written to validate those fields before using them, rather than trying to globally check known MADT version lengths. Link:https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181012192937.3819951-1-jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton<jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> [lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx: added MADT macro comments] Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi<lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla<sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> Cc: Will Deacon<will.deacon@xxxxxxx> Cc: Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> Cc: Al Stone<ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"<rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon<will.deacon@xxxxxxx> As ACPI_MADT_GICC_LENGTH is dropped, update the functions where it is used. As we rewrite the MADT for hwdom, reuse the host GICC header length instead of ACPI_MADT_GICC_LENGTH. Mark gic_get_hwdom_madt_size() as __init since its only caller is also __init. [1]https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.6/05_ACPI_Software_Programming_Model.html#gic-cpu-interface-gicc-structure Reported-By: Yann Dirson<yann.dirson@xxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Yann Sionneau<yann.sionneau@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko<oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx> --- I ran CI tests where it made sense for this patch, as I don’t see any CI job that builds Xen with CONFIG_ACPI=y: https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/pipelines/2252409762 I also built Xen manually with CONFIG_ACPI=y enabled and tested it on the AmpereOne platform. --- xen/arch/arm/acpi/domain_build.c | 6 ++++++ xen/arch/arm/gic-v2.c | 3 ++- xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c | 3 ++- xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 13 +++++++++++-- xen/arch/arm/include/asm/acpi.h | 21 +++++++++++++++------ 5 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/acpi/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/acpi/domain_build.c index 1c3555d814cc..959698d13ac3 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/acpi/domain_build.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/acpi/domain_build.c @@ -458,6 +458,12 @@ static int __init estimate_acpi_efi_size(struct domain *d, acpi_size += ROUNDUP(sizeof(struct acpi_table_stao), 8);madt_size = gic_get_hwdom_madt_size(d); If I understood the ACPI spec correctly, then yes, it should be the same length, as|GICC->length| is defined as a well defined constant value (82 in ACPI 6.6): https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.6/05_ACPI_Software_Programming_Model.html#gic-cpu-interface-gicc-structure --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/acpi.h +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/acpi.h @@ -53,13 +53,22 @@ void acpi_smp_init_cpus(void); */ paddr_t acpi_get_table_offset(struct membank tbl_add[], EFI_MEM_RES index);-/* Macros for consistency checks of the GICC subtable of MADT */-#define ACPI_MADT_GICC_LENGTH \ - (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision < 6 ? 76 : 80)Given this, ...+/* + * MADT GICC minimum length refers to the MADT GICC structure table length as + * defined in the earliest ACPI version supported on arm64, ie ACPI 5.1. + * + * The efficiency_class member was added to the + * struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt to represent the MADT GICC structure + * "Processor Power Efficiency Class" field, added in ACPI 6.0 whose offset + * is therefore used to delimit the MADT GICC structure minimum length + * appropriately. + */ +#define ACPI_MADT_GICC_MIN_LENGTH ACPI_OFFSET( \ + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, efficiency_class)-#define BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY(entry, end) \- (!(entry) || (unsigned long)(entry) + sizeof(*(entry)) > (end) || \ - (entry)->header.length != ACPI_MADT_GICC_LENGTH) +#define BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY(entry, end) \ + (!(entry) || (entry)->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_MIN_LENGTH || \ + (unsigned long)(entry) + (entry)->header.length > (end))... is 76 a valid length when the FADT revision is 6 or higher? And 80 is a valid length for 6.5 or higher? I'm not ACPI expert but my understanding that it isn't "very valid" values as I mentioned above GICC->length is defined as a constant value. But the idea here is to provide forward compatibility so only minumum MADT GICC length is checked and as mentioned here [1] by one of ACPI for Arm64 maintainer:> - (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision < 6 ? 76 : 80) > +#define ACPI_MADT_GICC_MIN_LENGTH ACPI_OFFSET( \ > + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, efficiency_class) > > This makes it 76 always which is fine, just that the first user of > efficiency_class should check for the length before accessing it. > No user of efficiency_class yet, so I am fine with this change. And I think the same is true for ACPI 6.3 which adds spe_interrupt and ACPI 6.5 trbe_interrupt. [1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20181015092919.GA1778@e107155-lin/ ~ Oleksii
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |