linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory

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: <8de5d3dd-a78f-02d5-0eea-4365364143b6@deltatee.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:21:20 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Cc:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory

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.

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.
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. We need to find the upstream
port of the switch and ensure all devices share that same port. If a
device is behind a switch, it's pci_upstream_bridge() is the downstream
switch port which is unique to that device. So a peer device would have
a different pci_upstream_bridge() port but share the same
pci_upstream_bridge(pci_upstream_bridge()) port (assuming they are on
the same switch).

The alternative, is to walk the entire tree of upstream ports and check
that all devices have a common port somewhere in the tree that isn't the
root complex. Arguably this is the right way to do it and would support
a network of switches but is a fair bit more complex to code.

Logan