linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] PCI: Check for PCIe downtraining conditions

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:46:28 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:     Alex_Gagniuc@...lteam.com
Cc:     Tal Gilboa <talgi@...lanox.com>, mr.nuke.me@...il.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Austin.Bolen@...l.com,
        Shyam.Iyer@...l.com,
        "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        ariel.elior@...ium.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        ganeshgr@...lsio.com, tariqt@...lanox.com,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        "Marciniszyn, Mike" <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] PCI: Check for PCIe downtraining conditions

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:39 PM <Alex_Gagniuc@...lteam.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/05/2018 02:06 AM, Tal Gilboa wrote:
> > On 7/31/2018 6:10 PM, Alex G. wrote:
> >> On 07/31/2018 01:40 AM, Tal Gilboa wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>>>>> @@ -2240,6 +2258,9 @@ static void pci_init_capabilities(struct
> >>>>>> pci_dev *dev)
> >>>>>>        /* Advanced Error Reporting */
> >>>>>>        pci_aer_init(dev);
> >>>>>> +    /* Check link and detect downtrain errors */
> >>>>>> +    pcie_check_upstream_link(dev);
> >>>>
> >>>> This is called for every PCIe device right? Won't there be a
> >>>> duplicated print in case a device loads with lower PCIe bandwidth
> >>>> than needed?
> >>>
> >>> Alex, can you comment on this please?
> >>
> >> Of course I can.
> >>
> >> There's one print at probe() time, which happens if bandwidth < max. I
> >> would think that's fine. There is a way to duplicate it, and that is if
> >> the driver also calls print_link_status(). A few driver maintainers who
> >> call it have indicated they'd be fine with removing it from the driver,
> >> and leaving it in the core PCI.
> >
> > We would be fine with that as well. Please include the removal in your
> > patches.
>
> What's the proper procedure? Do I wait for confirmation from Bjorn
> before knocking on maintainer's doors, or do I William Wallace into
> their trees and demand they merge the removal (pending Bjorn's approval
> on the other side) ?

Post a v4 series that does the PCI core stuff as well as removing the
driver code.

Bjorn