| 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: <20190425150640.GA20770@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:06:40 +0100
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Remi Pommarel <repk@...plefau.lt>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Ellie Reeves <ellierevves@...il.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: aardvark: Use LTSSM state to build link training
flag
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 04:23:53PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:08:30PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:12:43PM +0100, Remi Pommarel wrote:
> > > The PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag in the emulated root device's PCI_EXP_LNKSTA
> > > config register does not reflect the actual link training state and is
> > > always cleared. The Link Training and Status State Machine (LTSSM) flag
> > > in LMI config register could be used as a link training indicator.
> > > Indeed if the LTSSM is in L0 or upper state then link training has
> > > completed (see [1]).
> > >
> > > Unfortunately because setting the PCI_EXP_LINCTL_RL flag does not
> > > instantly imply a LTSSM state change (e.g. L0s to recovery state
> > > transition takes some time), LTSSM can be in L0 but link training has
> > > not finished yet. Thus a lower L0 LTSSM state followed by a L0 or upper
> > > state sequence has to be seen to be sure that link training has been
> > > done.
> >
> > Hi Remi,
> >
> > I am a bit confused, so you are saying that the LTSSM flag in the
> > LMI config register can't be used to detect when training is completed ?
>
> Not exactly, I am saying that PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT from PCI_EXP_LNKSTA
> register can't be used with this hardware, but can be emulated with
> LTSSM flag.
>
> >
> > Certainly it can't be used by ASPM core that relies on:
> >
> > PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag
> >
> > in the PCI_EXP_LNKSTA register, and that's what you are setting through
> > this timeout mechanism IIUC.
> >
> > Please elaborate on that.
>
> The problem here is that the hardware does not change PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT
> at all. So in order to support link re-training feature we need to
> emulate this flag. To do so LTSSM flag can be used.
Understood.
> Indeed we can set the emulated PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT as soon as re-training
> is asked and wait for LTSSM flag to be back to a configured state
> (e.g. L0, L0s) before clearing it.
The check for the LTSSM is carried out through advk_pcie_link_up()
(ie register CFG_REG), correct ?
> The problem with that is that LTSSM flag does not change instantly after
> link re-training has been asked, and will stay in configured state for a
> small amount of time. So the idea is to poll the LTSSM flag and wait for
> it to enter a recovery state then waiting for it to be back in
> configured state.
When you say "poll" you mean checking advk_pcie_link_up() ?
More below on the code.
> The timeout is only here as a fallback in the unlikely event that we
> missed the LTSSM flag entering recovery state.
>
> >
> > I am picking Bjorn's brain on this patch since what you are doing
> > seems quite arbitrary and honestly it is a bit of a hack.
>
> Yes, sorry, it is a bit of a hack because I try to workaround a
> hardware issue.
No problems, it is not your fault.
>
> Please note that vendor has been contacted about this in the meantime
> and answered the following:
>
> "FW can poll LTSSM state equals any of the following values: 0xB or 0xD
> or 0xC or 0xE. After that, polls for LTSSM equals 0x10. For your
> information, LTSSM will transit from 0x10 -> 0xB -> 0xD -> 0xC or 0xE
> ........... -> 0x10".
>
> It is basically what this patch does, I've just added a timeout fallback
> to not poll LTSSM state forever if its transition to 0xB, 0xD, 0xC or
> 0xE has been missed.
When you say "missed" you mean advk_pcie_link_up() returning true, right ?
[...]
> > > +static int advk_pcie_link_retraining(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie)) {
That's the bit I find confusing. Is this check here to detect if the
link went through the sequence below ? Should not it be carried
out only if (pcie->rl_asked == 1) ?
"... LTSSM will transit from 0x10 -> 0xB -> 0xD -> 0xC or 0xE
........... -> 0x10".
> > > + pcie->rl_asked = 0;
Why ?
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (pcie->rl_asked && time_before(jiffies, pcie->rl_deadline))
> > > + return 1;
This ensures that if the LTSSM >= 0x10 we still wait for a delay before
considering the link up (because I suppose, after asking a retraining
it takes a while for the LTSSM state to become < 0x10), correct ?
You have to comment this code since it is not easy to grasp.
Lorenzo
> > > +
> > > + pcie->rl_asked = 0;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > >
> > > static pci_bridge_emul_read_status_t
> > > advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> > > @@ -426,11 +442,19 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: {
> > > + u32 val = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg) &
> > > + ~(PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
> > > + if (advk_pcie_link_retraining(pcie))
> > > + val |= (PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
> > > + *value = val;
> > > + return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > case PCI_CAP_LIST_ID:
> > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCAP:
> > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> > > case PCI_EXP_LNKCAP:
> > > - case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> > > *value = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > > default:
> > > @@ -447,8 +471,15 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_write(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> > >
> > > switch (reg) {
> > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> > > + advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> > > advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > > + if (new & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL) {
> > > + pcie->rl_asked = 1;
> > > + pcie->rl_deadline = jiffies + LINK_RETRAIN_DELAY_MAX;
> > > + }
> > > break;
> > >
> > > case PCI_EXP_RTCTL:
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists