[EXT] RE: [edk2-stable202002][edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
Wu, Hao A
hao.a.wu at intel.com
Mon Feb 24 08:26:14 UTC 2020
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaurav Jain [mailto:gaurav.jain at nxp.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 3:04 PM
> To: Wu, Hao A; devel at edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming; afish at apple.com;
> lersek at redhat.com; leif at nuviainc.com; Kinney, Michael D
> Cc: Wang, Jian J; Ni, Ray; Ard Biesheuvel; Pankaj Bansal
> Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: [edk2-stable202002][edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1]
> MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
>
>
> > I think the above check for 'Attributes' can be dropped.
> > I found that the implementation of the PciIoGetBarAttributes() function
> does not
> > expose any configurable attributes. So the logic can fall through to the
> ASSERT
> > (for DEBUG images) and then returns EFI_UNSUPPORTED.
>
> I agree that PciIoGetBarAttributes() function sets *Supports as 0.
> But In SCT Test for SetBarAttributes, there is a test case for Unsupported
> Attribute which expects EFI_UNSUPPORTED. If I drop this check, ASSERT will
> come, which is not expected.
> Can we keep check for 'Attributes'?
Oh, I forgot that.
I have one question, is there any special reason for you to pick the supported
bits specified by:
EFI_PCI_DEVICE_ENABLE | EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE
Is it relating with the SCT test case?
Best Regards,
Hao Wu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 6:53 AM
> > To: devel at edk2.groups.io; Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain at nxp.com>; Gao,
> Liming
> > <liming.gao at intel.com>; afish at apple.com; lersek at redhat.com;
> > leif at nuviainc.com; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
> > Cc: Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni at intel.com>; Ard
> > Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>; Pankaj Bansal
> > <pankaj.bansal at nxp.com>
> > Subject: [EXT] RE: [edk2-stable202002][edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1]
> > MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
> >
> > Caution: EXT Email
> >
> > A couple of inline comments below. Please help to handle them in the next
> > version of patch.
> > With them addressed,
> > Reviewed-by: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> >
> >
> > Hello Liming and Stewards,
> >
> > I would like to confirm with you for whether the patch should catch the
> > upcoming stable tag.
> >
> > My personal take is that the patch is more like a code refinement rather
> than a
> > bug fix.
> >
> > Could you help to make a final call for this one? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hao Wu
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: devel at edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Gaurav Jain
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 11:40 PM
> > > To: devel at edk2.groups.io
> > > Cc: Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; Ni, Ray; Ard Biesheuvel; Pankaj Bansal;
> > > Gaurav Jain
> > > Subject: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts
> > > in SCT PCIIO Protocol Test.
> > >
> > > ASSERT in PollMem_Conf, CopyMem_Conf, SetBarAttributes_Conf
> > > Conformance Test.
> > > SCT Test expect return as Invalid Parameter or Unsupported.
> > > Added Checks for Function Parameters.
> > > return Invalid or Unsupported if Check fails.
> > >
> > > Added Checks in PciIoPollIo(), PciIoIoRead()
> > > PciIoIoWrite()
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain at nxp.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > > v2
> > > - Reverted ASSERT(FALSE) code.
> > > - Added Checks for Width, BarIndex, Buffer,
> > > Address range in PciIoIoRead, PciIoIoWrite.
> > > - Added Checks for Width, BarIndex, Result,
> > > Address range in PciIoPollIo, PciIoPollMem,
> > > PciIoCopyMem.
> > > - Added Checks for Attributes, BarIndex,
> > > Address range in PciIoSetBarAttributes.
> > >
> > > .../NonDiscoverablePciDeviceIo.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 180 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git
> > >
> a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > > ciDeviceIo.c
> > >
> b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > > ciDeviceIo.c
> > > index 2d55c9699322..4dd804356021 100644
> > > ---
> > >
> a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > > ciDeviceIo.c
> > > +++
> > >
> b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > > ciDeviceIo.c
> > > @@ -93,6 +93,35 @@ PciIoPollMem (
> > > OUT UINT64 *Result
> > > )
> > > {
> > > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > > + UINTN Count;
> > > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > +
> > > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Result == NULL) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > > + Count = 1;
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > > + (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > }
> > > @@ -126,6 +155,35 @@ PciIoPollIo (
> > > OUT UINT64 *Result
> > > )
> > > {
> > > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > > + UINTN Count;
> > > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > +
> > > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Result == NULL) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > > + Count = 1;
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > > + (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > }
> > > @@ -396,6 +454,33 @@ PciIoIoRead (
> > > IN OUT VOID *Buffer
> > > )
> > > {
> > > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > +
> > > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> >
> >
> > For PciIoIoRead(), I think enum values smaller than EfiPciIoWidthMaximum
> are
> > all valid. The above check seems to strict.
>
> Will address this in v3.
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Buffer == NULL) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > > + (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > }
> > > @@ -425,6 +510,33 @@ PciIoIoWrite (
> > > IN OUT VOID *Buffer
> > > )
> > > {
> > > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > +
> > > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> >
> >
> > For PciIoIoWrite(), I think enum values smaller than EfiPciIoWidthMaximum
> are
> > all valid. The above check seems to strict.
>
> Will address this in v3.
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Buffer == NULL) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > > + (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > }
> > > @@ -556,6 +668,40 @@ PciIoCopyMem (
> > > IN UINTN Count
> > > )
> > > {
> > > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *DestDesc;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *SrcDesc;
> > > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > +
> > > + if ((UINT32)Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (DestBarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR ||
> > > + SrcBarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, DestBarIndex, &DestDesc); if
> > > + (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (DestOffset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > DestDesc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource (Dev, SrcBarIndex, &SrcDesc); if
> > > + (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (SrcOffset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > SrcDesc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > }
> > > @@ -1414,6 +1560,40 @@ PciIoSetBarAttributes (
> > > IN OUT UINT64 *Length
> > > )
> > > {
> > > + NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE *Dev;
> > > + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Desc;
> > > + EFI_PCI_IO_PROTOCOL_WIDTH Width;
> > > + UINTN Count;
> > > + EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > +
> > > + #define DEV_SUPPORTED_ATTRIBUTES \
> > > + (EFI_PCI_DEVICE_ENABLE |
> > > EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE)
> > > +
> > > + if ((Attributes & (~DEV_SUPPORTED_ATTRIBUTES)) != 0) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> >
> >
> > I think the above check for 'Attributes' can be dropped.
> > I found that the implementation of the PciIoGetBarAttributes() function
> does not
> > expose any configurable attributes. So the logic can fall through to the
> ASSERT
> > (for DEBUG images) and then returns EFI_UNSUPPORTED.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > HaoWu
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (BarIndex >= PCI_MAX_BAR) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (Offset == NULL || Length == NULL) {
> > > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + Dev = NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_FROM_PCI_IO(This);
> > > + Width = EfiPciIoWidthUint8;
> > > + Count = (UINT32) *Length;
> > > +
> > > + Status = GetBarResource(Dev, BarIndex, &Desc); if (EFI_ERROR
> > > + (Status)) {
> > > + return Status;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (*Offset + (Count << (Width & 0x3)) > Desc->AddrLen) {
> > > + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT (FALSE);
> > > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#54752): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54752
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/71506527/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
More information about the edk2-devel-archive
mailing list