lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:56:39 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <>
Cc:     Stephen Bates <>,
        Sinan Kaya <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>, Jens Axboe <>,
        Keith Busch <>,
        Sagi Grimberg <>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        Max Gurtovoy <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Jérôme Glisse <>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Alex Williamson <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:21:20PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 13/03/18 05:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:31:55PM +0000, Stephen  Bates wrote:
> > If it *is* necessary because Root Ports and devices below them behave
> > differently than in conventional PCI, I think you should include a
> > reference to the relevant section of the spec and check directly for a
> > Root Port.  I would prefer that over trying to exclude Root Ports by
> > looking for two upstream bridges.
> Well we've established that we don't want to allow root ports.

I assume you want to exclude Root Ports because of multi-function
devices and the "route to self" error.  I was hoping for a reference
to that so I could learn more about it.

While I was looking for it, I found sec (PCIe r4.0), "ACS
Functions in SR-IOV Capable and Multi-Function Devices", which seems
relevant.  It talks about "peer-to-peer Requests (between Functions of
the device)".  Thay says to me that multi-function devices can DMA
between themselves.

> But we need to, at a minimum, do two pci_upstream_bridge() calls...
> Remember, we need to check that a number of devices are behind the same
> switch. So we need to find a _common_ upstream port for several devices.

I agree that peers need to have a common upstream bridge.  I think
you're saying peers need to have *two* common upstream bridges.  If I
understand correctly, requiring two common bridges is a way to ensure
that peers directly below Root Ports don't try to DMA to each other.

So I guess the first order of business is to nail down whether peers
below a Root Port are prohibited from DMAing to each other.  My
assumption, based on and the fact that I haven't yet found
a prohibition, is that they can.

> Excluding the multifunction device case (which I don't think is
> applicable for reasons we've discussed before), this will *never* be the
> first upstream port for a given device.

If you're looking for a common upstream bridge, you don't need to make
assumptions about whether the hierarchy is conventional PCI or PCIe or
how many levels are in the hierarchy.

You already have upstream_bridges_match(), which takes two pci_devs.
I think it should walk up the PCI hierarchy from the first device,
checking whether the bridge at each level is also a parent of the
second device.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ