[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be2acdf424b74d948c3ff45093dc6332@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:36:36 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Bjorn Helgaas' <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: revert bab65e48cb064 PCI/MSI Sanitize MSI-X checks
From: Bjorn Helgaas
> Sent: 06 April 2023 16:08
>
> [+cc linux-pci, regressions]
>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:05:14AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > The change in bab65e48cb064 breaks pci_enable_msix_range().
> > The intent is to optimise the sanity checks, but it is
> > somewhat overenthusiastic.
> >
> > The interface allows you to ask for a lot of vectors and
> > returns the number that were allocated.
> > However, after the change, you can't request a vector
> > that is higher than the largest the hardware supports.
> > Which makes that rather pointless.
> >
> > So code like:
> > for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
> > msix_tbl[i].entry = i;
> > nvec = pci_enable_msix_range(dev, msix_tbl, 1, 16);
> > Now returns -22 if the hardware only supports 8 interrupts.
> >
> > Previously it returned 8.
> >
> > I can fix my driver, but I suspect that any code that relies
> > on a smaller number of vectors being returned is now broken.
>
> Thanks for the report! bab65e48cb06 ("PCI/MSI: Sanitize MSI-X
> checks") appeared in v6.2-rc1, so this is a recent regression and it
> would be good to fix it for v6.3.
I do try to test every release at around rc3.
> bab65e48cb06 only touches drivers/pci/msi/msi.c, but since it didn't
> go through the PCI tree, I'll let Thomas handle any revert (or better,
> an improvement to pci_msix_validate_entries()) since he wrote and
> applied the original.
Looking it:
static bool pci_msix_validate_entries(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msix_entry *entries,
int nvec, int hwsize)
{
bool nogap;
int i, j;
if (!entries)
return true;
nogap = pci_msi_domain_supports(dev, MSI_FLAG_MSIX_CONTIGUOUS, DENY_LEGACY);
for (i = 0; i < nvec; i++) {
/* Entry within hardware limit? */
if (entries[i].entry >= hwsize)
return false;
/* Check for duplicate entries */
for (j = i + 1; j < nvec; j++) {
if (entries[i].entry == entries[j].entry)
return false;
}
/* Check for unsupported gaps */
if (nogap && entries[i].entry != i)
return false;
}
return true;
}
It probably needs to return an updated 'nvec'.
The gap/duplicate check is also a bit horrid, why not:
if (nogap) {
if (entries[i].entry != i)
return false;
continue;
}
if (!i || entries[i].entry > entries[i - 1].entry)
continue;
horrid, expensive loop...
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists