Message-ID: <1371595667.22659.53.camel@ul30vt.home>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:47:47 -0600
From:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pci: Fix flaw in pci_acs_enabled()

On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:10 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Alex Williamson
> <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 11:09 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:34:41AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> > Downstream ports support for all ACS flags supercedes multifunction
> >> > exclusion of some flags.  The PCIe spec also fully specifies which
> >> > PCIe types are subject to the multifunction rules and excludes event
> >> > collectors and PCIe-to-PCI bridges entirely.  Document each rule to
> >> > the section of the PCIe spec.
> >>
> >> What's the flaw, exactly?  Does this fix a user-visible issue?  Should
> >> it be backported to any stable releases?  It'd be nice to have an
> >> example or two of devices where we return the wrong thing today.
> >>
> >> Oh, I think I see: the original code filters out flags for
> >> multi-function downstream ports, and your new code does not.
> >
> > Right, if you have a multifunction root port and you want to check a
> > feature that applies to downstream ports, but not multifunction devices,
> > we were previously filtering those out.
> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/pci/pci.c |   59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >> >  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> > index b099e00..457ae51 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> > @@ -2354,6 +2354,19 @@ void pci_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >> >     pci_write_config_word(dev, pos + PCI_ACS_CTRL, ctrl);
> >> >  }
> >> >
> >> > +static bool pci_acs_flags_enabled(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 acs_flags)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   int pos;
> >> > +   u16 ctrl;
> >> > +
> >> > +   pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ACS);
> >> > +   if (!pos)
> >> > +           return false;
> >> > +
> >> > +   pci_read_config_word(pdev, pos + PCI_ACS_CTRL, &ctrl);
> >> > +   return (ctrl & acs_flags) == acs_flags;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> >  /**
> >> >   * pci_acs_enabled - test ACS against required flags for a given device
> >> >   * @pdev: device to test
> >> > @@ -2364,8 +2377,7 @@ void pci_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >> >   */
> >> >  bool pci_acs_enabled(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 acs_flags)
> >>
> >> I know you didn't change the *name* of this function, but I think it
> >> would be easier to follow if you did change the name to something more
> >> descriptive, e.g., something to do with the actual property you're
> >> interested in, which has to do with routing peer-to-peer DMA.
> >>
> >> That property makes sense even for the excluded devices, while the
> >> idea of an ACS capability that doesn't even exist is implicitly
> >> enabled, really doesn't.
> >
> > I think we also don't want to put the complexity at the caller for
> > understanding what capabilities are applicable to a given device.  It's
> > also convenient to use the set of ACS flags.  Given that, the current
> > naming came about.  It's a little awkward, but it's easy to use.
> > Suggestions for a better name?
> 
> 100% agreed the caller shouldn't have to worry about different device
> types.  I was thinking something like "pci_enforces_peer_isolation()"
> or "pci_peer_dma_routed_upstream()".  Or maybe it should be
> "pci_dev_...()".

Ok, I'll play with those.  I'm worried that there are nuances to each
flag bit that don't all fit under such a broad description.  Do you want
to gate this series on a rename of an existing function?

> >> >  {
> >> > -   int pos, ret;
> >> > -   u16 ctrl;
> >> > +   int ret;
> >> >
> >> >     ret = pci_dev_specific_acs_enabled(pdev, acs_flags);
> >> >     if (ret >= 0)
> >> > @@ -2374,23 +2386,42 @@ bool pci_acs_enabled(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 acs_flags)
> >> >     if (!pci_is_pcie(pdev))
> >> >             return false;
> >> >
> >> > -   /* Filter out flags not applicable to multifunction */
> >> > -   if (pdev->multifunction)
> >> > +   switch (pci_pcie_type(pdev)) {
> >> > +   /*
> >> > +    * PCIe 3.0, 6.12.1 excludes ACS on these devices.  "Not applicable"
> >> > +    */
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE:
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC:
> >> > +           break;
> >>
> >> Why not just return "true" immediately here, or even better, just omit
> >> the case altogether, since it doesn't change the behavior at all?
> >
> > It could certainly return true, I debated that for a while and decided
> > to break just to reduce the number of exit points.
> 
> That's interesting; I know lots of people advocate a single exit
> point, but for functions like this where there's no cleanup and we're
> essentially doing a "goto" to a "return <constant>", it seems harder
> to read because I have to look down at the bottom to see how this case
> is resolved.  Oh well, no point in arguing about *that* :)
> 
> > Omitting the case
> > means that anyone who looks at this in the future has to figure out why
> > those pcie types aren't explicitly listed.
> >
> >> > +   /*
> >> > +    * PCIe 3.0, 6.12.1.1 specifies full ACS capabilities on downstream
> >> > +    * ports, regardless of them being multifunction devices.
> >> > +    */
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM:
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT:
> >> > +           return pci_acs_flags_enabled(pdev, acs_flags);
> >> > +   /*
> >> > +    * PCIe 3.0, 6.12.1.2 specifies unimplemented ACS capabilities on
> >> > +    * multifunction devices.  6.12 footnote identifies specifically
> >> > +    * which devices types this applies to.
> >> > +    */
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT:
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM:
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_LEG_END:
> >> > +   case PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END:
> >> > +           if (!pdev->multifunction)
> >> > +                   break;
> >>
> >> And here.
> >
> > Same
> >
> >> > +
> >> >             acs_flags &= (PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_CR |
> >> >                           PCI_ACS_EC | PCI_ACS_DT);
> >> >
> >> > -   if (pci_pcie_type(pdev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM ||
> >> > -       pci_pcie_type(pdev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
> >> > -       pdev->multifunction) {
> >> > -           pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ACS);
> >> > -           if (!pos)
> >> > -                   return false;
> >> > -
> >> > -           pci_read_config_word(pdev, pos + PCI_ACS_CTRL, &ctrl);
> >> > -           if ((ctrl & acs_flags) != acs_flags)
> >> > -                   return false;
> >> > +           return pci_acs_flags_enabled(pdev, acs_flags);
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> > +   /*
> >> > +    * PCIe 3.0, 6.12.1.3 specifies no ACS capabilties are applicable
> >> > +    * to single function devices with the exception of downstream ports.
> >> > +    */
> >> >     return true;
> >> >  }
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I actually liked the original code organization, because it's closer
> >> to expressing the idea of "here are the control points where hardware
> >> can make choices about routing peer-to-peer DMA and here's the knob
> >> (ACS) that constrains those choices."
> >>
> >> Maybe something like (pidgin C):
> >>
> >>     if (PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM || PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)
> >>       return pci_acs_flags_enabled(pdev, acs_flags);
> >>
> >>     if (!pdev->multifunction)
> >>       return true;
> >>
> >>     acs_flags &= (PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_CR | ...);
> >>     return pci_acs_flags_enabled(pdev, acs_flags);
> >
> > Ok.  I re-organized it because I got tired of re-reading the spec to
> > make sure that a given type of device was handled correctly.  Note that
> > the above simplification incorrectly handles multifunction bridges or EC
> > devices.
> 
> Hmm...  What *is* the correct behavior for a bridge?  You return
> "true," i.e., you're saying that a PCIe-to-PCI bridge will always
> route peer-to-peer transactions from PCI devices upstream to its PCIe
> link.  But that seems wrong: a PCI DMA transaction can target a peer
> on the same PCI bus, and it's not even possible for the bridge to
> validate the transaction or forward it upstream.
> 
> I suspect the "ACS is never applicable to a PCI Express to PCI Bridge
> Function" statement in 6.12.1 just means "it's impossible for ACS to
> isolate the devices below the bridge from each other, so it would be
> misleading to implement the capability."

Note that we never consider ACS to be enabled for a conventional PCI
device.  I suppose we could have cases where it's the only device on a
bus, but for the most part, it's not worth the trouble (it may be the
only device now, then a hotplug occurs).  So really saying the bridge
does or doesn't support ACS doesn't matter to the devices behind it.
What does matter is the fan-out of that isolation group of the
conventional devices beyond the bridge.  If the spec is indicating that
a bridge cannot do peer-to-peer with other devices  then all of the
conventional devices behind it are in an isolation domain so long as the
path between the bridge and the RC supports ACS.  If the bridge can do
peer-to-peer and it is a multifunction device, then the isolation domain
grows to include the other functions and subordinates of the other
functions.  I took the assumption that a bridge probably needs to
forward transaction upstream.  Do you have an alternate opinion?

> I have no idea or speculation about why the spec calls out Event
> Collectors.  They aren't bridges, so I suppose it must be related to
> multi-function devices?

I wonder if they can even do DMA, that might be why they're called out.
I don't really know anything about ECs though.

> > I can do something like you suggest, but being explicit was
> > actually a goal in fixing this bug and avoiding future bugs.  Thanks,
> 
> Is there a bugzilla you can reference here?  Or can we at least turn
> the "multi-function downstream port flag filtering" thing into a
> user-visible effect?  I can see what it fixes at the microscopic
> level, but I really don't know the implications of it.

There's no bugzilla for this.  This is a subtle change I don't think you
can see it.  If we assume that all devices comply with the spec (ha!),
then downstream ports must implement all the capability bits.  We mask
some out incorrectly, but we've already blasted a compatible set into
the control register in pci_enable_acs().  So this is purely for
correctness and you should not actually be able to see a difference in
iommu group topology from it (unless you can find a non-spec compliant
device which misses some required bits).  Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists