| 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: <f6ee630d-6db5-a39e-6660-6c96a27189b4@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:40:31 -0700
From: sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ashok.raj@...el.com, keith.busch@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] PCI/ATS: Add PRI support for PCIe VF devices
Hi,
On 8/12/19 1:04 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:06:01PM -0700, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> When IOMMU tries to enable Page Request Interface (PRI) for VF device
>> in iommu_enable_dev_iotlb(), it always fails because PRI support for
>> PCIe VF device is currently broken. Current implementation expects
>> the given PCIe device (PF & VF) to implement PRI capability before
>> enabling the PRI support. But this assumption is incorrect. As per PCIe
>> spec r4.0, sec 9.3.7.11, all VFs associated with PF can only use the
>> PRI of the PF and not implement it. Hence we need to create exception
>> for handling the PRI support for PCIe VF device.
>>
>> Also, since PRI is a shared resource between PF/VF, following rules
>> should apply.
>>
>> 1. Use proper locking before accessing/modifying PF resources in VF
>> PRI enable/disable call.
>> 2. Use reference count logic to track the usage of PRI resource.
>> 3. Disable PRI only if the PRI reference count (pri_ref_cnt) is zero.
>>
>> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
>> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
>> Suggested-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/ats.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> include/linux/pci.h | 2 +
>> 2 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/ats.c b/drivers/pci/ats.c
>> index 1f4be27a071d..079dc5444444 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/ats.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/ats.c
>> @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@ void pci_pri_init(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> if (pdev->is_virtfn)
>> return;
>>
>> + mutex_init(&pdev->pri_lock);
>> +
>> pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PRI);
>> if (!pos)
>> return;
>> @@ -221,29 +223,57 @@ int pci_enable_pri(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 reqs)
>> {
>> u16 control, status;
>> u32 max_requests;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>>
>> - if (WARN_ON(pdev->pri_enabled))
>> - return -EBUSY;
>> + mutex_lock(&pf->pri_lock);
>>
>> - if (!pdev->pri_cap)
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + if (WARN_ON(pdev->pri_enabled)) {
>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>> + goto pri_unlock;
>> + }
>>
>> - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_STATUS, &status);
>> - if (!(status & PCI_PRI_STATUS_STOPPED))
>> - return -EBUSY;
>> + if (!pf->pri_cap) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto pri_unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (pdev->is_virtfn && pf->pri_enabled)
>> + goto update_status;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Before updating PRI registers, make sure there is no
>> + * outstanding PRI requests.
>> + */
>> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_STATUS, &status);
>> + if (!(status & PCI_PRI_STATUS_STOPPED)) {
>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>> + goto pri_unlock;
>> + }
>>
>> - pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_MAX_REQ,
>> - &max_requests);
>> + pci_read_config_dword(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_MAX_REQ, &max_requests);
>> reqs = min(max_requests, reqs);
>> - pdev->pri_reqs_alloc = reqs;
>> - pci_write_config_dword(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_ALLOC_REQ, reqs);
>> + pf->pri_reqs_alloc = reqs;
>> + pci_write_config_dword(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_ALLOC_REQ, reqs);
>>
>> control = PCI_PRI_CTRL_ENABLE;
>> - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
>> + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
>>
>> - pdev->pri_enabled = 1;
>> + /*
>> + * If PRI is not already enabled in PF, increment the PF
>> + * pri_ref_cnt to track the usage of PRI interface.
>> + */
>> + if (pdev->is_virtfn && !pf->pri_enabled) {
>> + atomic_inc(&pf->pri_ref_cnt);
>> + pf->pri_enabled = 1;
>> + }
>>
>> - return 0;
>> +update_status:
>> + atomic_inc(&pf->pri_ref_cnt);
>> + pdev->pri_enabled = 1;
>> +pri_unlock:
>> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pri_lock);
>> + return ret;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pri);
>>
>> @@ -256,18 +286,30 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pri);
>> void pci_disable_pri(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> {
>> u16 control;
>> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>>
>> - if (WARN_ON(!pdev->pri_enabled))
>> - return;
>> + mutex_lock(&pf->pri_lock);
>>
>> - if (!pdev->pri_cap)
>> - return;
>> + if (WARN_ON(!pdev->pri_enabled) || !pf->pri_cap)
>> + goto pri_unlock;
>> +
>> + atomic_dec(&pf->pri_ref_cnt);
>>
>> - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, &control);
>> + /*
>> + * If pri_ref_cnt is not zero, then don't modify hardware
>> + * registers.
>> + */
>> + if (atomic_read(&pf->pri_ref_cnt))
>> + goto done;
>> +
>> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, &control);
>> control &= ~PCI_PRI_CTRL_ENABLE;
>> - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
>> + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
>>
>> +done:
>> pdev->pri_enabled = 0;
>> +pri_unlock:
>> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pri_lock);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_disable_pri);
>>
>> @@ -277,17 +319,31 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_disable_pri);
>> */
>> void pci_restore_pri_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> {
>> - u16 control = PCI_PRI_CTRL_ENABLE;
>> - u32 reqs = pdev->pri_reqs_alloc;
>> + u16 control;
>> + u32 reqs;
>> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>>
>> if (!pdev->pri_enabled)
>> return;
>>
>> - if (!pdev->pri_cap)
>> + if (!pf->pri_cap)
>> return;
>>
>> - pci_write_config_dword(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_ALLOC_REQ, reqs);
>> - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
>> + mutex_lock(&pf->pri_lock);
>> +
>> + /* If PRI is already enabled by other VF's or PF, return */
>> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, &control);
>> + if (control & PCI_PRI_CTRL_ENABLE)
>> + goto pri_unlock;
>> +
>> + reqs = pf->pri_reqs_alloc;
>> + control = PCI_PRI_CTRL_ENABLE;
>> +
>> + pci_write_config_dword(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_ALLOC_REQ, reqs);
>> + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
> Why use "control" here instead of just PCI_PRI_CTRL_ENABLE?
It can be done. Even in original code, using control did not serve any
purpose. I just left the implementation as original code.
>
>> +pri_unlock:
>> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pri_lock);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_restore_pri_state);
>>
>> @@ -300,18 +356,32 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_restore_pri_state);
>> */
>> int pci_reset_pri(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> {
>> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>> u16 control;
>> + int ret = 0;
>>
>> - if (WARN_ON(pdev->pri_enabled))
>> - return -EBUSY;
>> + mutex_lock(&pf->pri_lock);
>>
>> - if (!pdev->pri_cap)
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + if (WARN_ON(pdev->pri_enabled)) {
>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>> + goto done;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!pf->pri_cap) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto done;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* If PRI is already enabled by other VF's or PF, return 0 */
>> + if (pf->pri_enabled)
>> + goto done;
>>
>> control = PCI_PRI_CTRL_RESET;
>> - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_CTRL, control);
> Also here (you didn't add this one, but "control" is completely
> pointless in this function).
>
>> +done:
>> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pri_lock);
>> + return ret;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_reset_pri);
>> #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_PRI */
>> @@ -475,11 +545,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_pasid_features);
>> int pci_prg_resp_pasid_required(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> {
>> u16 status;
>> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&pf->pri_lock);
>>
>> - if (!pdev->pri_cap)
>> + if (!pf->pri_cap) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pri_lock);
>> return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_STATUS, &status);
>>
>> - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pri_cap + PCI_PRI_STATUS, &status);
>> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pri_lock);
>>
>> if (status & PCI_PRI_STATUS_PASID)
>> return 1;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
>> index 27224c0db849..3c9c4c82be27 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
>> @@ -455,8 +455,10 @@ struct pci_dev {
>> atomic_t ats_ref_cnt; /* Number of VFs with ATS enabled */
>> #endif
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_PRI
>> + struct mutex pri_lock; /* PRI enable lock */
>> u16 pri_cap; /* PRI Capability offset */
>> u32 pri_reqs_alloc; /* Number of PRI requests allocated */
>> + atomic_t pri_ref_cnt; /* Number of PF/VF PRI users */
>> #endif
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_PASID
>> u16 pasid_cap; /* PASID Capability offset */
>> --
>> 2.21.0
>>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux kernel developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists