linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V4 1/1] NTB: Add support for AMD PCI-Express Non-Transparent Bridge

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000301d152f8$2e7a7780$8b6f6680$@emc.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:30:04 -0500
From:	"Allen Hubbe" <Allen.Hubbe@....com>
To:	"'Xiangliang Yu'" <Xiangliang.Yu@....com>, <jdmason@...zu.us>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ntb@...glegroups.com>
Cc:	<SPG_Linux_Kernel@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 1/1] NTB: Add support for AMD PCI-Express Non-Transparent Bridge

From: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@....com>
> This adds support for AMD's PCI-Express Non-Transparent Bridge
> (NTB) device on the Zeppelin platform. The driver connnects to the
> standard NTB sub-system interface, with modification to add hooks
> for power management in a separate patch. The AMD NTB device has 3
> memory windows, 16 doorbell, 16 scratch-pad registers, and supports
> up to 16 PCIe lanes running a Gen3 speeds.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@....com>

> +static int amd_ntb_mw_set_trans(struct ntb_dev *ntb, int idx,
> +				dma_addr_t addr, resource_size_t size)
> +{

There is some concept of "split bar" in this function, and I want to be sure to understand it correctly.

BAR0 - configuration?
BAR1 - 32bit memory window? i.e. "split" bar?
BAR2+3 - 64bit memory window?
BAR4+5 - 64bit memory window?

Note that "split" in the intel driver refers to BAR4+5, which is normally a 64bit memory window, split into independent 32bit windows BAR4 and BAR5 by bios configuration.  Calling it "split" there makes sense.  Here, calling it "split" is confusing, but as long as the code is correct, I think it's ok.

> +		/* set and verify setting the translation address */
> +		iowrite64(addr, peer_mmio + xlat_reg);
> +		reg_val = ioread64(peer_mmio + xlat_reg);
> +		if (reg_val != addr) {
> +			iowrite64(0, peer_mmio + xlat_reg);
> +			return -EIO;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* set and verify setting the limit */
> +		writel(limit, mmio + limit_reg);
> +		reg_val = readl(mmio + limit_reg);
> +		if (reg_val != limit) {
> +			writel(base_addr, mmio + limit_reg);
> +			writel(0, peer_mmio + xlat_reg);
> +			return -EIO;
> +		}

I see a lot of readl/writel and ioread/iowrite in the same file, even in the same function as there is here.  Pick one variant of the functions, preferably the ioread/iowrite variant, and be consistent in its usage throughout the file.

> +static int amd_link_is_up(struct amd_ntb_dev *ndev)
> +{
> +	if (!ndev->peer_sta)
> +		return NTB_LNK_STA_ACTIVE(ndev->cntl_sta);
> +	else if (ndev->peer_sta & AMD_PEER_RESET_EVENT)
> +		ndev->peer_sta &= ~AMD_PEER_RESET_EVENT;
> +	else if (ndev->peer_sta & AMD_PEER_D0_EVENT)
> +		ndev->peer_sta = 0;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

This function changed since v3.

The first "else" is not necessary after a branch that returns.  It would be more clearly written as follows.

if (!ndev->peer_sta)
	return LNK_STA;

if (ndev->peer_sta & RESET)
	...;
else if (ndev->peer_sta & D0)
	...;

return 0;

It's also interesting that if it hits the last branch, ndev->peer_sta is assigned zero, but the function returns zero, not LNK_STA.  If the function were immediately called again, it would return LNK_STA.  Can you please explain the logic here?

The upper layer may poll the link status at any time, so unless the link status actually changed (as indicated by the hardware) between polls, the result of polling should be the same.

If the first time polling returns zero as a result of peer_sta,
 - AND the second time polling returns LNK_STA,
 - AND the hardware link state is UP,
 - AND the only difference is not the hardware
    link state but the value of peer_sta,
 - THEN this is a bug.

I should have noticed and made the comment in v1, which had the same behavior, though it was more explicit.

>From v1:
> +	} else if (ndev->peer_sta & AMD_PEER_D0_EVENT) {
> +		ndev->peer_sta = 0;
> +		return 0;

Thanks,
Allen