linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] vfio/pci: Change the PF power state to D0 before enabling VFs

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: <20220517122710.093c9c19.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 12:27:10 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@...dia.com>
Cc:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] vfio/pci: Change the PF power state to D0 before
 enabling VFs

On Tue, 17 May 2022 15:32:17 +0530
Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@...dia.com> wrote:

> According to [PCIe v5 9.6.2] for PF Device Power Management States
> 
>  "The PF's power management state (D-state) has global impact on its
>   associated VFs. If a VF does not implement the Power Management
>   Capability, then it behaves as if it is in an equivalent
>   power state of its associated PF.
> 
>   If a VF implements the Power Management Capability, the Device behavior
>   is undefined if the PF is placed in a lower power state than the VF.
>   Software should avoid this situation by placing all VFs in lower power
>   state before lowering their associated PF's power state."
> 
> From the vfio driver side, user can enable SR-IOV when the PF is in D3hot
> state. If VF does not implement the Power Management Capability, then
> the VF will be actually in D3hot state and then the VF BAR access will
> fail. If VF implements the Power Management Capability, then VF will
> assume that its current power state is D0 when the PF is D3hot and
> in this case, the behavior is undefined.
> 
> To support PF power management, we need to create power management
> dependency between PF and its VF's. The runtime power management support
> may help with this where power management dependencies are supported
> through device links. But till we have such support in place, we can
> disallow the PF to go into low power state, if PF has VF enabled.
> There can be a case, where user first enables the VF's and then
> disables the VF's. If there is no user of PF, then the PF can put into
> D3hot state again. But with this patch, the PF will still be in D0
> state after disabling VF's since detecting this case inside
> vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure() requires access to
> struct vfio_device::open_count along with its locks. But the subsequent
> patches related to runtime PM will handle this case since runtime PM
> maintains its own usage count.
> 
> Also, vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure() can be called at any time
> (with and without vfio pci device user), so the power state change
> needs to be protected with the required locks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@...dia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> index b9f222ca48cf..4fe9a4efc751 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> @@ -217,6 +217,10 @@ int vfio_pci_set_power_state(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, pci_power_t stat
>  	bool needs_restore = false, needs_save = false;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	/* Prevent changing power state for PFs with VFs enabled */
> +	if (pci_num_vf(pdev) && state > PCI_D0)
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +
>  	if (vdev->needs_pm_restore) {
>  		if (pdev->current_state < PCI_D3hot && state >= PCI_D3hot) {
>  			pci_save_state(pdev);
> @@ -1960,6 +1964,13 @@ int vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  		}
>  		list_add_tail(&vdev->sriov_pfs_item, &vfio_pci_sriov_pfs);
>  		mutex_unlock(&vfio_pci_sriov_pfs_mutex);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * The PF power state should always be higher than the VF power
> +		 * state. If PF is in the low power state, then change the
> +		 * power state to D0 first before enabling SR-IOV.
> +		 */
> +		vfio_pci_lock_and_set_power_state(vdev, PCI_D0);

But we need to hold memory_lock across the next function or else
userspace could race a write to the PM register to set D3 before
pci_num_vf() can protect us.  Thanks,

Alex

>  		ret = pci_enable_sriov(pdev, nr_virtfn);
>  		if (ret)
>  			goto out_del;