linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] PCI: pciehp: Skip DLLSC handling if DPC is triggered

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]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4j8t4Y=kpRSvOjOfVHd107YemiRcW0BNQRwp-d9oCddUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:31:14 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, knsathya@...nel.org,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] PCI: pciehp: Skip DLLSC handling if DPC is triggered

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:31 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:08:31PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:14 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 07:32:08PM -0800, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > +     if ((events == PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_DLLSC) && is_dpc_reset_active(pdev)) {
> > > > +             ctrl_info(ctrl, "Slot(%s): DLLSC event(DPC), skipped\n",
> > > > +                       slot_name(ctrl));
> > > > +             ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > +             goto out;
> > > > +     }
> > >
> > > Two problems here:
> > >
> > > (1) If recovery fails, the link will *remain* down, so there'll be
> > >     no Link Up event.  You've filtered the Link Down event, thus the
> > >     slot will remain in ON_STATE even though the device in the slot is
> > >     no longer accessible.  That's not good, the slot should be brought
> > >     down in this case.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on why that is "not good" from the end user
> > perspective? From a driver perspective the device driver context is
> > lost and the card needs servicing. The service event starts a new
> > cycle of slot-attention being triggered and that syncs the slot-down
> > state at that time.
>
> All of pciehp's code assumes that if the link is down, the slot must be
> off.  A slot which is in ON_STATE for a prolonged period of time even
> though the link is down is an oddity the code doesn't account for.
>
> If the link goes down, the slot should be brought into OFF_STATE.
> (It's okay though to delay bringdown until DPC recovery has completed
> unsuccessfully, which is what the patch I'm proposing does.)
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "service event".  Someone unplugging
> and replugging the NVMe drive?

Yes, service meaning a technician physically removes the card.

>
>
> > > (2) If recovery succeeds, there's a race where pciehp may call
> > >     is_dpc_reset_active() *after* dpc_reset_link() has finished.
> > >     So both the DPC Trigger Status bit as well as pdev->dpc_reset_active
> > >     will be cleared.  Thus, the Link Up event is not filtered by pciehp
> > >     and the slot is brought down and back up even though DPC recovery
> > >     was succesful, which seems undesirable.
> >
> > The hotplug driver never saw the Link Down, so what does it do when
> > the slot transitions from Link Up to Link Up? Do you mean the Link
> > Down might fire after the dpc recovery has completed if the hotplug
> > notification was delayed?
>
> If the Link Down is filtered and the Link Up is not, pciehp will
> bring down the slot and then bring it back up.  That's because pciehp
> can't really tell whether a DLLSC event is Link Up or Link Down.
>
> It just knows that the link was previously up, is now up again,
> but must have been down intermittently, so transactions to the
> device in the slot may have been lost and the slot is therefore
> brought down for safety.  Because the link is up, it is then
> brought back up.

I wonder why we're not seeing that effect in testing?