linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] PCI: uniphier: Add misc interrupt handler to invoke PME and AER

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1d98ef53-fe81-6de2-bd65-dd88d6875cb8@socionext.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:36:08 +0900
From:   Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] PCI: uniphier: Add misc interrupt handler to
 invoke PME and AER

Hi Marc,

On 2020/06/04 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-06-04 10:43, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> -static void uniphier_pcie_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc)
>>>> +static void uniphier_pcie_misc_isr(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>>>  {
>>>> -    struct pcie_port *pp = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
>>>>      struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_pp(pp);
>>>>      struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = to_uniphier_pcie(pci);
>>>> -    struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
>>>> -    unsigned long reg;
>>>> -    u32 val, bit, virq;
>>>> +    u32 val, virq;
>>>>
>>>> -    /* INT for debug */
>>>>      val = readl(priv->base + PCL_RCV_INT);
>>>>
>>>>      if (val & PCL_CFG_BW_MGT_STATUS)
>>>>          dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Link Bandwidth Management Event\n");
>>>> +
>>>>      if (val & PCL_CFG_LINK_AUTO_BW_STATUS)
>>>>          dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Link Autonomous Bandwidth Event\n");
>>>> -    if (val & PCL_CFG_AER_RC_ERR_MSI_STATUS)
>>>> -        dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Root Error\n");
>>>> -    if (val & PCL_CFG_PME_MSI_STATUS)
>>>> -        dev_dbg(pci->dev, "PME Interrupt\n");
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (pci_msi_enabled()) {
>>>
>>> This checks whether the kernel supports MSIs. Not that they are
>>> enabled in your controller. Is that really what you want to do?
>>
>> The below two status bits are valid when the interrupt for MSI is asserted.
>> That is, pci_msi_enabled() is wrong.
>>
>> I'll modify the function to check the two bits only if this function is
>> called from MSI handler.
>>
>>>
>>>> +        if (val & PCL_CFG_AER_RC_ERR_MSI_STATUS) {
>>>> +            dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Root Error Status\n");
>>>> +            virq = irq_linear_revmap(pp->irq_domain, 0);
>>>> +            generic_handle_irq(virq);
>>>> +        }
>>>> +
>>>> +        if (val & PCL_CFG_PME_MSI_STATUS) {
>>>> +            dev_dbg(pci->dev, "PME Interrupt\n");
>>>> +            virq = irq_linear_revmap(pp->irq_domain, 0);
>>>> +            generic_handle_irq(virq);
>>>> +        }
>>>
>>> These two cases do the exact same thing, calling the same interrupt.
>>> What is the point of dealing with them independently?
>>
>> Both PME and AER are asserted from MSI-0, and each handler checks its own
>> status bit in the PCIe register (aer_irq() in pcie/aer.c and pcie_pme_irq()
>> in pcie/pme.c).
>> So I think this handler calls generic_handle_irq() for the same MSI-0.
> 
> So what is wrong with
> 
>          if (val & (PCL_CFG_AER_RC_ERR_MSI_STATUS |
>                     PCL_CFG_PME_MSI_STATUS)) {
>                  // handle interrupt
>          }
> 
> ?

No problem.
I'll rewrite it in the same way as yours in handling interrupts.

> If you have two handlers for the same interrupt, this is a shared
> interrupt and each handler will be called in turn.
Yes, MSI-0 is shared with PME and AER, and it will be like that.

Thank you,

---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi