| 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: <20200423164225.680178-1-lyude@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:42:24 -0400
From: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
To: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin@....com>, Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Wayne Lin <waynelin@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "drm/dp_mst: Remove single tx msg restriction."
This reverts commit 6bb0942e8f46863a745489cce27efe5be2a3885e.
Unfortunately it would appear that the rumors we've heard of sideband
message interleaving not being very well supported are true. On the
Lenovo ThinkPad Thunderbolt 3 dock that I have, interleaved messages
appear to just get dropped:
[drm:drm_dp_mst_wait_tx_reply [drm_kms_helper]] timedout msg send
00000000571ddfd0 2 1
[dp_mst] txmsg cur_offset=2 cur_len=2 seqno=1 state=SENT path_msg=1 dst=00
[dp_mst] type=ENUM_PATH_RESOURCES contents:
[dp_mst] port=2
DP descriptor for this hub:
OUI 90-cc-24 dev-ID SYNA3 HW-rev 1.0 SW-rev 3.12 quirks 0x0008
It would seem like as well that this is a somewhat well known issue in
the field. From section 5.4.2 of the DisplayPort 2.0 specification:
There are MST Sink/Branch devices in the field that do not handle
interleaved message transactions.
To facilitate message transaction handling by downstream devices, an
MST Source device shall generate message transactions in an atomic
manner (i.e., the MST Source device shall not concurrently interleave
multiple message transactions). Therefore, an MST Source device shall
clear the Message_Sequence_No value in the Sideband_MSG_Header to 0.
MST Source devices that support field policy updates by way of
software should update the policy to forego the generation of
interleaved message transactions.
This is a bit disappointing, as features like HDCP require that we send
a sideband request every ~2 seconds for each active stream. However,
there isn't really anything in the specification that allows us to
accurately probe for interleaved messages.
If it ends up being that we -really- need this in the future, we might
be able to whitelist hubs where interleaving is known to work-or maybe
try some sort of heuristics. But for now, let's just play it safe and
not use it.
Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
Fixes: 6bb0942e8f46 ("drm/dp_mst: Remove single tx msg restriction.")
Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin@....com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
index 21f10ceb3d6c..03a1496f6120 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
@@ -1205,6 +1205,8 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_wait_tx_reply(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb,
txmsg->state == DRM_DP_SIDEBAND_TX_SENT) {
mstb->tx_slots[txmsg->seqno] = NULL;
}
+ mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
+
}
out:
if (unlikely(ret == -EIO) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
@@ -1214,6 +1216,7 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_wait_tx_reply(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb,
}
mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
+ drm_dp_mst_kick_tx(mgr);
return ret;
}
@@ -2789,9 +2792,11 @@ static void process_single_down_tx_qlock(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr)
ret = process_single_tx_qlock(mgr, txmsg, false);
if (ret == 1) {
/* txmsg is sent it should be in the slots now */
+ mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = true;
list_del(&txmsg->next);
} else if (ret) {
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("failed to send msg in q %d\n", ret);
+ mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
list_del(&txmsg->next);
if (txmsg->seqno != -1)
txmsg->dst->tx_slots[txmsg->seqno] = NULL;
@@ -2831,7 +2836,8 @@ static void drm_dp_queue_down_tx(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
}
- if (list_is_singular(&mgr->tx_msg_downq))
+ if (list_is_singular(&mgr->tx_msg_downq) &&
+ !mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply)
process_single_down_tx_qlock(mgr);
mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
}
@@ -3823,6 +3829,7 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_handle_down_rep(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr)
mutex_lock(&mgr->qlock);
txmsg->state = DRM_DP_SIDEBAND_TX_RX;
mstb->tx_slots[seqno] = NULL;
+ mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
wake_up_all(&mgr->tx_waitq);
@@ -3830,6 +3837,9 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_handle_down_rep(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr)
return 0;
out_clear_reply:
+ mutex_lock(&mgr->qlock);
+ mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
+ mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
if (msg)
memset(msg, 0, sizeof(struct drm_dp_sideband_msg_rx));
out:
@@ -4683,7 +4693,7 @@ static void drm_dp_tx_work(struct work_struct *work)
struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr = container_of(work, struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr, tx_work);
mutex_lock(&mgr->qlock);
- if (!list_empty(&mgr->tx_msg_downq))
+ if (!list_empty(&mgr->tx_msg_downq) && !mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply)
process_single_down_tx_qlock(mgr);
mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
}
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h
index 2d7c26592c05..96bcf33c03d3 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h
@@ -592,6 +592,11 @@ struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr {
*/
bool payload_id_table_cleared : 1;
+ /**
+ * @is_waiting_for_dwn_reply: whether we're waiting for a down reply.
+ */
+ bool is_waiting_for_dwn_reply : 1;
+
/**
* @mst_primary: Pointer to the primary/first branch device.
*/
--
2.25.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists