| 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: <20230314160227.GA1645738@bhelgaas>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:02:27 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
joro@...tes.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, robin.murphy@....com,
will@...nel.org, jean-philippe@...aro.org,
darren@...amperecomputing.com, scott@...amperecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI/ATS: Add a helper function to configure ATS
STU of a PF
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:06:07PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14-03-2023 06:22 pm, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> > On 3/14/23 3:08 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> > > On 14-03-2023 04:00 am, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> > > > On 3/13/23 2:12 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:21:36PM -0800, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > > > As per PCI specification (PCI Express Base Specification
> > > > > > Revision 6.0, Section 10.5) both PF and VFs of a PCI EP
> > > > > > are permitted to be enabled independently for ATS
> > > > > > capability, however the STU(Smallest Translation Unit) is
> > > > > > shared between PF and VFs. For VFs, it is hardwired to
> > > > > > Zero and the associated PF's value applies to VFs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the current code, the STU is being configured while
> > > > > > enabling the PF ATS. Hence, it is not able to enable ATS
> > > > > > for VFs, if it is not enabled on the associated PF
> > > > > > already.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adding a function pci_ats_stu_configure(), which can be
> > > > > > called to configure the STU during PF enumeration. Latter
> > > > > > enumerations of VFs can successfully enable ATS
> > > > > > independently.
> > > > > > @@ -46,6 +46,35 @@ bool pci_ats_supported(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_ats_supported);
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * pci_ats_stu_configure - Configure STU of a PF.
> > > > > > + * @dev: the PCI device
> > > > > > + * @ps: the IOMMU page shift
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Returns 0 on success, or negative on failure.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +int pci_ats_stu_configure(struct pci_dev *dev, int ps)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + u16 ctrl;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (dev->ats_enabled || dev->is_virtfn)
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > I might return an error for the VF case on the assumption
> > > > > that it's likely an error in the caller. I guess one could
> > > > > argue that it simplifies the caller if it doesn't have to
> > > > > check for PF vs VF. But the fact that STU is shared between
> > > > > PF and VFs is an important part of understanding how ATS
> > > > > works, so the caller should be aware of the distinction
> > > > > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I have already asked this question. But let me repeat it.
> > > >
> > > > We don't have any checks for the PF case here. That means you
> > > > can re-configure the STU as many times as you want until ATS
> > > > is enabled in PF. So, if there are active VFs which uses this
> > > > STU, can PF re-configure the STU at will?
> > >
> > > IMO, Since STU is shared, programming it multiple times is not expected from callers code do it, however we can add below check to allow to program STU once from a PF.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/ats.c b/drivers/pci/ats.c
> > > index 1611bfa1d5da..f7bb01068e18 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/ats.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/ats.c
> > > @@ -60,6 +60,10 @@ int pci_ats_stu_configure(struct pci_dev *dev, int ps)
> > > if (dev->ats_enabled || dev->is_virtfn)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > + /* Configured already */
> > > + if (dev->ats_stu)
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > Theoretically, you can re-configure STU as long as no one is using
> > it. Instead of this check, is there a way to check whether there
> > are active VMs which enables ATS?
>
> Yes I agree, there is no limitation on how many times you write STU
> bits, but practically it is happening while PF is enumerated.
>
> The usage of function pci_ats_stu_configure is almost
> similar(subset) to pci_enable_ats and only difference is one does
> ATS enable + STU program and another does only STU program.
What would you think of removing the STU update feature from
pci_enable_ats() so it always fails if pci_ats_stu_configure() has not
been called, even when called on the PF, e.g.,
if (ps != pci_physfn(dev)->ats_stu)
return -EINVAL;
pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->ats_cap + PCI_ATS_CTRL, &ctrl);
ctrl |= PCI_ATS_CTRL_ENABLE;
pci_write_config_word(dev, dev->ats_cap + PCI_ATS_CTRL, ctrl);
Would probably also have to set "dev->ats_stu = 0" in
pci_disable_ats() to allow the possibility of calling
pci_ats_stu_configure() again.
> IMO, I dont think, there is any need to find how many active VMs
> with attached VFs and it is not done for pci_enable_ats as well.
Enabling or disabling ATS in a PF or VF has no effect on other
functions.
But changing STU while a VF has ATS enabled would definitely break any
user of that VF, so if it's practical to verify that no VFs have ATS
enabled, I think we should.
> Also the caller has the requirement to call either
> pci_ats_stu_configure or pci_enable_ats while enumerating the PF.
>
> > > if (!pci_ats_supported(dev))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!pci_ats_supported(dev))
> > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (ps < PCI_ATS_MIN_STU)
> > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + dev->ats_stu = ps;
> > > > > > + pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->ats_cap + PCI_ATS_CTRL, &ctrl);
> > > > > > + ctrl |= PCI_ATS_CTRL_STU(dev->ats_stu - PCI_ATS_MIN_STU);
> > > > > > + pci_write_config_word(dev, dev->ats_cap + PCI_ATS_CTRL, ctrl);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_ats_stu_configure);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > /**
> > > > > > * pci_enable_ats - enable the ATS capability
> > > > > > * @dev: the PCI device
> > > > > > @@ -68,8 +97,8 @@ int pci_enable_ats(struct pci_dev *dev, int ps)
> > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > - * Note that enabling ATS on a VF fails unless it's already enabled
> > > > > > - * with the same STU on the PF.
> > > > > > + * Note that enabling ATS on a VF fails unless it's already
> > > > > > + * configured with the same STU on the PF.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > ctrl = PCI_ATS_CTRL_ENABLE;
> > > > > > if (dev->is_virtfn) {
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci-ats.h b/include/linux/pci-ats.h
> > > > > > index df54cd5b15db..7d62a92aaf23 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/pci-ats.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/pci-ats.h
> > > > > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > > > > /* Address Translation Service */
> > > > > > bool pci_ats_supported(struct pci_dev *dev);
> > > > > > int pci_enable_ats(struct pci_dev *dev, int ps);
> > > > > > +int pci_ats_stu_configure(struct pci_dev *dev, int ps);
> > > > > > void pci_disable_ats(struct pci_dev *dev);
> > > > > > int pci_ats_queue_depth(struct pci_dev *dev);
> > > > > > int pci_ats_page_aligned(struct pci_dev *dev);
> > > > > > @@ -16,6 +17,8 @@ static inline bool pci_ats_supported(struct pci_dev *d)
> > > > > > { return false; }
> > > > > > static inline int pci_enable_ats(struct pci_dev *d, int ps)
> > > > > > { return -ENODEV; }
> > > > > > +static inline int pci_ats_stu_configure(struct pci_dev *d, int ps)
> > > > > > +{ return -ENODEV; }
> > > > > > static inline void pci_disable_ats(struct pci_dev *d) { }
> > > > > > static inline int pci_ats_queue_depth(struct pci_dev *d)
> > > > > > { return -ENODEV; }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists