| 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: <6C5C96C5-0365-48A0-B623-1A4C0CE0D13E@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:19:39 -0700
From: "Sean V Kelley" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
To: "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, tony.luck@...el.com,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Qiuxu Zhuo" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] PCI/AER: Add RCEC AER handling
On 27 Jul 2020, at 5:22, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:22:21 -0700
> Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> The Root Complex Event Collectors(RCEC) appear as peers to Root Ports
>> and also have the AER capability. So add RCEC support to the current
>> AER
>> service driver and attach the AER service driver to the RCEC device.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
>
> A few questions and comments for this patch.
>
> See inline.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> index f1bf06be449e..7cc430c74c46 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ int pci_aer_raw_clear_status(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> return -EIO;
>>
>> port_type = pci_pcie_type(dev);
>> - if (port_type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT) {
>> + if (port_type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT || port_type ==
>> PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC) {
>> pci_read_config_dword(dev, aer + PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS, &status);
>> pci_write_config_dword(dev, aer + PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS, status);
>> }
>> @@ -389,6 +389,12 @@ void pci_aer_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> pci_add_ext_cap_save_buffer(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ERR, sizeof(u32) *
>> n);
>>
>> pci_aer_clear_status(dev);
>> +
>> + if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC) {
>> + if (!pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_RCEC))
>> + return;
>> + pci_info(dev, "AER: RCEC CAP FOUND and cap_has_rtctl = %d\n", n);
>
> It feels like failing to find an RC_EC extended cap in a RCEC deserved
> a nice strong error message. Perhaps this isn't the right place to do
> it
> though. For that matter, why are we checking for it here?
Sorry, I’ve left an in-development output in the code. Will replace
with a check with more meaningful output elsewhere.
>
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> void pci_aer_exit(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> @@ -577,7 +583,8 @@ static umode_t aer_stats_attrs_are_visible(struct
>> kobject *kobj,
>> if ((a == &dev_attr_aer_rootport_total_err_cor.attr ||
>> a == &dev_attr_aer_rootport_total_err_fatal.attr ||
>> a == &dev_attr_aer_rootport_total_err_nonfatal.attr) &&
>
> It is a bit ugly to have these called rootport_total_err etc for the
> rcec.
> Perhaps we should just add additional attributes to reflect we are
> looking at
> an RCEC?
I was trying to avoid any renaming to reduce churn as I did with my
first patch for ACPI / CLX_OSC support.
Will take a look.
>
>> - pci_pcie_type(pdev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)
>> + ((pci_pcie_type(pdev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT) &&
>> + (pci_pcie_type(pdev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))
>> return 0;
>>
>> return a->mode;
>> @@ -894,7 +901,10 @@ static bool find_source_device(struct pci_dev
>> *parent,
>> if (result)
>> return true;
>>
>> - pci_walk_bus(parent->subordinate, find_device_iter, e_info);
>> + if (pci_pcie_type(parent) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)
>> + pcie_walk_rcec(parent, find_device_iter, e_info);
>> + else
>> + pci_walk_bus(parent->subordinate, find_device_iter, e_info);
>>
>> if (!e_info->error_dev_num) {
>> pci_info(parent, "can't find device of ID%04x\n", e_info->id);
>> @@ -1030,6 +1040,7 @@ int aer_get_device_error_info(struct pci_dev
>> *dev, struct aer_err_info *info)
>> if (!(info->status & ~info->mask))
>> return 0;
>> } else if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
>> + pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC ||
>> pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM ||
>> info->severity == AER_NONFATAL) {
>>
>> @@ -1182,6 +1193,8 @@ static int set_device_error_reporting(struct
>> pci_dev *dev, void *data)
>> int type = pci_pcie_type(dev);
>>
>> if ((type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT) ||
>> + (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC) ||
>> + (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END) ||
>
> Why add RC_END here?
I’m not clear on your question. Errors can come from RCEC or RCiEPs.
We still need to enable reporting by the RCiEPs.
>
>> (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM) ||
>> (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM)) {
>> if (enable)
>> @@ -1206,9 +1219,11 @@ static void
>> set_downstream_devices_error_reporting(struct pci_dev *dev,
>> {
>> set_device_error_reporting(dev, &enable);
>>
>> - if (!dev->subordinate)
>> - return;
>> - pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate, set_device_error_reporting,
>> &enable);
>> + if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)
>> + pcie_walk_rcec(dev, set_device_error_reporting, &enable);
>> + else if (dev->subordinate)
>> + pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate, set_device_error_reporting,
>> &enable);
>> +
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -1306,6 +1321,11 @@ static int aer_probe(struct pcie_device *dev)
>> struct device *device = &dev->device;
>> struct pci_dev *port = dev->port;
>>
>> + /* Limit to Root Ports or Root Complex Event Collectors */
>> + if ((pci_pcie_type(port) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC) &&
>> + (pci_pcie_type(port) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> rpc = devm_kzalloc(device, sizeof(struct aer_rpc), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!rpc)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -1362,7 +1382,7 @@ static pci_ers_result_t aer_root_reset(struct
>> pci_dev *dev)
>>
>> static struct pcie_port_service_driver aerdriver = {
>> .name = "aer",
>> - .port_type = PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT,
>> + .port_type = PCIE_ANY_PORT,
>
> Why this particular change? Seems that is a lot wider than simply
> adding RCEC. Obviously we'll then drop out in the aer_probe but it
> is still rather inelegant.
In order to extend the service drivers to non-root-port devices (i.e.,
RCEC), the simple path appeared to only require setting the type to
ANY_PORT and catching the needed types arriving in the probe. Would you
prefer extending to a type2? I’m not sure how one is more elegant
than another but open to that approach. However, this seems to require
less code perhaps and seems consistent with most ‘drop-out’
conditional patterns in the kernel. The same applies to pme.
Thanks,
Sean
>
>> .service = PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_AER,
>>
>> .probe = aer_probe,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists