[PATCH 1/2] arm64: smp: Fix pseudo NMI issues w/ broken Mediatek FW

Tue Oct 3 12:32:39 PDT 2023

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:32 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 06:43:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:29 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 12:16:17PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:45:29AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > > > Some mediatek devices have the property
> > > > > > "mediatek,broken-save-restore-fw" in their GIC. This means that,
> > > > > > although the hardware supports pseudo-NMI, the firmware has a bug
> > > > > > that blocks enabling it. When we're in this state,
> > > > > > system_uses_irq_prio_masking() will return true but we'll fail to
> > > > > > actually enable the IRQ in the GIC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's make the code handle this. We'll detect that we failed to
> > > > > > request an IPI as NMI and fallback to requesting it normally. Though
> > > > > > we expect that either all of our requests will fail or all will
> > > > > > succeed, it's just as cheap to keep a per-IPI bitmap and that keeps us
> > > > > > robust.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: 331a1b3a836c ("arm64: smp: Add arch support for backtrace using pseudo-NMI")
> > > > > > Reported-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst at chromium.org>
> > > > > > Closes: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/197061987#comment68
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not too keen on falling back here when we have no idea why the request failed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd prefer if we could check the `supports_pseudo_nmis` static key directly to
> > > > > account for the case of broken FW, e.g. as below.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---->8----
> > > > > From 72fdec05c64a74f21871b44c7c760bbe07cac044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > > > > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 18:00:36 +0100
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] arm64: smp: avoid NMI IPIs with broken MediaTek FW
> > > > >
> > > > > Some MediaTek devices have broken firmware which corrupts some GICR
> > > > > registers behind the back of the OS, and pseudo-NMIs cannot be used on
> > > > > these devices. For more details see commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >   44bd78dd2b8897f5 ("irqchip/gic-v3: Disable pseudo NMIs on Mediatek devices w/ firmware issues")
> > > > >
> > > > > We did not take this problem into account in commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >   331a1b3a836c0f38 ("arm64: smp: Add arch support for backtrace using pseudo-NMI")
> > > > >
> > > > > Since that commit arm64's SMP code will try to setup some IPIs as
> > > > > pseudo-NMIs, even on systems with broken FW. The GICv3 code will
> > > > > (rightly) reject attempts to request interrupts as pseudo-NMIs,
> > > > > resulting in boot-time failures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Avoid the problem by taking the broken FW into account when deciding to
> > > > > request IPIs as pseudo-NMIs. The GICv3 driver maintains a static_key
> > > > > named "supports_pseudo_nmis" which is false on systems with broken FW,
> > > > > and we can consult this within ipi_should_be_nmi().
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 331a1b3a836c0f38 ("arm64: smp: Add arch support for backtrace using pseudo-NMI")
> > > > > Reported-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst at chromium.org>
> > > > > Closes: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/197061987#comment68
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > > > > Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> > > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c      | 5 ++++-
> > > > >  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Sure, this is OK w/ me as long as folks don't mind accessing the
> > > > global here, it's OK w/ me:
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> > > >
> > > > It seems to work for me, thus:
> > > >
> > > > Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > > > index 814d9aa93b21b..061c69160f90f 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > > > @@ -964,7 +964,10 @@ static void smp_cross_call(const struct cpumask *target, unsigned int ipinr)
> > > > >
> > > > >  static bool ipi_should_be_nmi(enum ipi_msg_type ipi)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -       if (!system_uses_irq_prio_masking())
> > > > > +       DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(supports_pseudo_nmis);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (!system_uses_irq_prio_masking() ||
> > > > > +           !static_branch_likely(&supports_pseudo_nmis))
> > > >
> > > > One thought, actually, is whether we should actually change
> > > > system_uses_irq_prio_masking() to return the correct value. What do
> > > > you think?
> > >
> > > I don't think we should add this to system_uses_irq_prio_masking(); that's used
> > > by the low-level flags manipulation code that gets inlined all over the place,
> > > and that code will work regarldess of whether we actually use NMI priorities.
> > >
> > > If we want to avoid using PMR masking *at all* on these platforms, we'd need to
> > > detect that within can_use_gic_priorities() or early_enable_pseudo_nmi().
> >
> > I suspect that anyone trying to use PMR masking on these systems for
> > any purpose will be unhappy. The issue is talked about in:
> >
> > https://issuetracker.google.com/281831288
> >
> > ...where you can see that the firmware on these systems isn't properly
> > saving/restoring some registers, including GICR_IPRIORITYR.
>
> Ok, then that's a latent bug even before the IPI changes, going back to the
> original workaround in commit:
>
>   44bd78dd2b8897f5 ("irqchip/gic-v3: Disable pseudo NMIs on Mediatek devices w/ firmware issues")
>
> For the sake of those reading the archive, can we have a better description of
> what exactly happens on these boards?
>
> IIUC on these boards the firmware fails to save+restore (some?) GICR registers
> across (some?) PSCI CPU_SUSPEND idle states.
>
> Which registers does it save+restore?
>
> Does it reset other registers into a specific state?

Though I'm not an expert in this area, my understanding is that in
some of the deeper idle states then GICR registers are lost. That
matches a thread [0] I found. In early investigation I found that I
could comment out `cpu-idle-states` in the device tree to avoid the
problems [1]. I believe this is fully expected which is why firmware
is supposed to save/restore these registers whenever a low power is
entered/exited. I'd presume that any register not properly
saved/restored comes up in whatever its default state is.

As far as pseudo-NMI was concerned, all I really needed to
save/restore was "GICR_NUM_IPRIORITYR" [2], but Marc Zyngier looked at
the code and identified [3] at least these in addition:
* GICR_CTLR
* GICR_ISPENDR0
* GICR_ISACTIVER0
* GICR_NSACR

That list seems to match the Arm Trusted Firmware patch that fixed the
issue [4]. ...but it will be impossible to ever get the fix rolled out
to all devices. Even if we could get firmware spins Qualified for
every device there will still be cases where we'll boot with the old
firmware. Since we _don't_ bundle the device tree with the firmware,
we believe that the quirk mechanism that we came up with (add a quirk
in never device trees and firmware removes the quirk when we have a
fix) is at least a robust/reliable way to detect the issue.

The whole issue seems rather concerning, but (apparently) it never
caused issues in the kernel until we tried to use pseudo-NMI.

[0] https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/464
[1] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/197061987#comment27
[2] https://crrev.com/c/4519877
[3] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/281831288#comment5
[4] https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/commit/1c62cc7fbdf2ec2a7e69b3c027d507fcafdcaa12