linux-kernel - Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH] pci: mediatek: fix warning in msi.h

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 03 Nov 2020 09:54:23 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
        Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@...iatek.com>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Frank Wunderlich <linux@...web.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH] pci: mediatek: fix warning in msi.h

On 2020-11-02 22:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02 2020 at 17:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 02 2020 at 11:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>> @@ -871,6 +871,8 @@ static void pci_set_bus_msi_domain(struct pci_bus
>>> *bus)
>>>   		d = pci_host_bridge_msi_domain(b);
>>> 
>>>   	dev_set_msi_domain(&bus->dev, d);
>>> +	if (!d)
>>> +		bus->bus_flags |= PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI;
>> 
>> Hrm, that might break legacy setups (no irqdomain support). I'd rather
>> prefer to explicitly tell the pci core at host registration time.
> 
> s/might break/ breaks /     Just validated :)

For my own edification, can you point me to the failing case?

> So we really need some other solution and removing the warning is not 
> an
> option. If MSI is enabled then we want to get a warning when a PCI
> device has no MSI domain associated. Explicitly expressing the PCIE
> brigde misfeature of not supporting MSI is way better than silently
> returning an error code which is swallowed anyway.

I don't disagree here, though the PCI_MSI_ARCH_FALLBACKS mechanism
makes it more difficult to establish.

> Whatever the preferred way is via flags at host probe time or flagging
> it post probe I don't care much as long as it is consistent.

Host probe time is going to require some changes in the core PCI api,
as everything that checks for a MSI domain is based on the pci_bus
structure, which is only allocated much later.

I'll have a think.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...