| lists.openwall.net | 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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1372265097.30572.558.camel@ul30vt.home>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:44:57 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Hartmann <andihartmann@...19freenet.de>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pci: ACS quirk for AMD southbridge
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 18:24 +0200, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 17:14 +0200, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> >> Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>> [fix Joerg's email address]
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Alex Williamson
> >>>> <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>> We've confirmed that peer-to-peer between these devices is
> >>>>> not possible. We can therefore claim that they support a
> >>>>> subset of ACS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Joerg Roedel <Joerg.Roedel@....com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Two things about this patch make me a little nervous. The
> >>>>> first is that I'd really like to have a pci_is_pcie() test
> >>>>> in pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled(), but these devices don't
> >>>>> have a PCIe capability. That means that if there was a
> >>>>> topology where these devices sit on a legacy PCI bus,
> >>>>> we incorrectly return that we're ACS safe here. That leads
> >>>>> to my second problem, pciids seems to suggest that some of
> >>>>> these functions have been around for a while. Is it just
> >>>>> this package that's peer-to-peer safe, or is it safe to
> >>>>> assume that any previous assembly of these functions is
> >>>>> also p2p safe. Maybe we need to factor in device revs if
> >>>>> that uniquely identifies this package?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks like another useful device to potentially quirk
> >>>>> would be:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 00:15.0 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB700/SB800/SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 0)
> >>>>> 00:15.1 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB700/SB800/SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 1)
> >>>>> 00:15.2 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 2)
> >>>>> 00:15.3 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 3)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 00:15.0 0604: 1002:43a0
> >>>>> 00:15.1 0604: 1002:43a1
> >>>>> 00:15.2 0604: 1002:43a2
> >>>>> 00:15.3 0604: 1002:43a3
> >>>>>
> >>>>> drivers/pci/quirks.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> >>>>> index 4ebc865..2c84961 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> >>>>> @@ -3271,11 +3271,40 @@ struct pci_dev *pci_get_dma_source(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>>>> return pci_dev_get(dev);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +/*
> >>>>> + * Multifunction devices that do not support peer-to-peer between
> >>>>> + * functions can claim to support a subset of ACS. Such devices
> >>>>> + * effectively enable request redirect (RR) and completion redirect (CR)
> >>>>> + * since all transactions are redirected to the upstream root complex.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> +static int pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 acs_flags)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + if (!dev->multifunction)
> >>>>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Filter out flags not applicable to multifunction */
> >>>>> + acs_flags &= (PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_CR | PCI_ACS_EC | PCI_ACS_DT);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return acs_flags & ~(PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_CR) ? 0 : 1;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> static const struct pci_dev_acs_enabled {
> >>>>> u16 vendor;
> >>>>> u16 device;
> >>>>> int (*acs_enabled)(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 acs_flags);
> >>>>> } pci_dev_acs_enabled[] = {
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * AMD/ATI multifunction southbridge devices. AMD has confirmed
> >>>>> + * that peer-to-peer between these devices is not possible, so
> >>>>> + * they do support a subset of ACS even though the capability is
> >>>>> + * not exposed in config space.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4385, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
> >>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x439c, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
> >>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4383, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
> >>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x439d, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
> >>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4384, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
> >>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4399, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
> >>>>> { 0 }
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was looking for something else and found this old email. This patch
> >>>> hasn't been applied and I haven't seen any discussion about it. Is it
> >>>> still of interest? It seems relevant to the current ACS discussion
> >>>> [1].
> >>
> >> It is absolutely relevant. I always have to patch my kernel to get it
> >> working to put my pci device to VM. Meanwhile I'm doing it for
> >> kernel 3.9. I would be very glad to get these patches to the kernel as
> >> they don't do anything bad!
> >
> > I'd still like to see this get in too. IIRC, where we left off was that
> > Joerg had confirmed with the hardware folks that there is no
> > peer-to-peer between these devices, but we still had questions about
> > whether that was true for any instance of these vendor/device IDs.
> > These devices are re-used in several packages and I'm not sure if we
> > need to somehow figure out what package (ie. which chipset generation)
> > we're looking at to know if p2p is used.
>
> Does this statement cover your question?
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/99402
Yeah, perhaps it does. I initially disregarded it because it's easy to
tell if an IOMMU is active, but more difficult to tell if one is there
and inactive. However, iommu_present() will tell us if one is there and
active, which is mostly what we care about. 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