linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc: Fix BCMA PCIe bus scanning regression

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: <20160126215405.GA26726@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:54:05 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Rafal Milecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	Hante Meuleman <meuleman@...adcom.com>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc: Fix BCMA PCIe bus scanning regression

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:37:20AM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 1/26/2016 10:22 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >Hi Ray,
> >
> >On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>Commit 943ebae781f5 ("PCI: iproc: Add PAXC interface support") causes
> >>regression on EP device detection on BCMA based platforms. This patch
> >>fixes the issue by allowing multiple devices to be configured on the
> >>same bus, for all PAXB based child buses
> >>
> >>Reported-by: Rafal Milecki <zajec5@...il.com>
> >>Fixes: 943ebae781f5 ("PCI: iproc: Add PAXC interface support")
> >>Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c | 5 +++--
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >>index 5816bce..4627561 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >>@@ -171,10 +171,11 @@ static inline void iproc_pcie_ob_write(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static inline bool iproc_pcie_device_is_valid(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
> >>+					      unsigned int busnum,
> >>  					      unsigned int slot,
> >>  					      unsigned int fn)
> >>  {
> >>-	if (slot > 0)
> >>+	if ((pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXC || busnum == 0) && slot > 0)
> >>  		return false;
> >>
> >>  	/* PAXC can only support limited number of functions */
> >
> >I don't understand this.  Here's the whole function (with this patch
> >applied):
> >
> >     static inline bool iproc_pcie_device_is_valid(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
> >						  unsigned int busnum,
> >						  unsigned int slot,
> >						  unsigned int fn)
> >     {
> >	    if ((pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXC || busnum == 0) && slot > 0)
> >		    return false;
> >
> >	    /* PAXC can only support limited number of functions */
> >	    if (pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXC && fn >= MAX_NUM_PAXC_PF)
> >		    return false;
> >
> >	    return true;
> >     }
> >
> >This says:
> >
> >   - On bus 00, device 0 is the only valid device.  That seems
> >     plausible because the devices on bus 00 are probably built-in to
> >     the SoC.
> >
> >   - On PAXC-based systems, device 0 is the only valid device on *any*
> >     bus.  Is that really true?  If there's any way to add a plug-in
> >     card, this seems overly restrictive.
> 
> Yah, PAXC is connected with one internal device within the SoC.
> There's no connection brought out of the chip.
> 
> >     PCIe devices are generally all device 0, but this would mean you
> >     cannot plug in a PCIe-to-PCI bridge leading to a PCI device with a
> >     non-zero device number.
> >
> >     I think it also means you could not plug in a PCIe device with ARI
> >     enabled, because I think we store the upper 5 bits of the 8-bit
> >     ARI function number in the PCI_SLOT bits.
> >
> >   - On PAXC-based systems, only functions 0, 1, 2, and 3 are valid
> >     anywhere in the hierarchy.  I think this again restricts what what
> >     cards can be plugged in.
> 
> Yes, the internal device connected to PAXC supports 4 physical functions.
> 
> >If iProc only supports devices built directly into the SoC, maybe
> >these constraints are valid.  But if it supports any plugin or
> >external devices, they don't seem to make sense.
> 
> Correct. PAXC only connects to one built-in device, while PAXB can
> support external EP devices.

OK, thanks for confirming all that.

Something looks wrong in iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus().
iproc_pcie_device_is_valid() returns true for device 00:00.1,
but the "busno == 0" case in iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus() doesn't
use "fn".  So the function number is ignored?  That would mean
there's no difference between 000:00.0, 00:00.1, 00:00.2,
00:00.3, etc.

I think this would be clearer and less error-prone if
iproc_pcie_device_is_valid() were folded directly into
iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus().

Bjorn