linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Parse the PCIe AER and set to relevant registers

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: <433ad19a-8286-ff58-9fd8-d7dd13547032@zhaoxin.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:11:28 +0800
From:   LeoLiuoc <LeoLiu-oc@...oxin.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     <rafael@...nel.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <james.morse@....com>,
        <tony.luck@...el.com>, <bp@...en8.de>, <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        <ying.huang@...el.com>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devel@...ica.org>, <CobeChen@...oxin.com>,
        <TonyWWang@...oxin.com>, <ErosZhang@...oxin.com>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Li, Ming" <ming4.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Parse the PCIe AER and set to relevant registers



在 2023/4/8 7:18, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
> [+cc Sathy, Ming, since they commented on the previous version]
> 
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:11:15AM +0800, LeoLiu-oc wrote:
>> From: leoliu-oc <leoliu-oc@...oxin.com>
>>
>> According to the sec 18.3.2.4, 18.3.2.5 and 18.3.2.6 in ACPI r6.5, the
>> register values form HEST PCI Express AER Structure should be written to
>> relevant PCIe Device's AER Capabilities. So the purpose of the patch set
>> is to extract register values from HEST PCI Express AER structures and
>> program them into AER Capabilities. Refer to the ACPI Spec r6.5 for a more
>> detailed description.
> 
> I wasn't involved in this part of the ACPI spec, and I don't
> understand how this is intended to work.
> 
> I see that this series extracts AER mask, severity, and control
> information from the ACPI HEST table and uses it to configure PCIe
> devices as they are enumerated.
> 
> What I don't understand is how this relates to ownership of the AER
> capability as negotiated by the _OSC method.  Firmware can configure
> the AER capability itself, and if it retains control of the AER
> capability, the OS can't write to it (with the exception of clearing
> EDR error status), so this wouldn't be necessary.

There is no relationship between the ownership of the AER related 
register and the ownership of the AER capability in the OS or Firmware. 
The processing here is to initialize the AER related register, not the 
AER event. If Firmware is configured with AER register, it will not be 
able to handle the runtime hot reset and link retrain cases in addition 
to the hotplug case you mentioned below.

> 
> If the OS owns the AER capability, I assume it gets to decide for
> itself how to configure AER, no matter what the ACPI HEST says.
> 

What information does the OS use to decide how to configure AER? The 
ACPI Spec has the following description: PCI Express (PCIe) root ports 
may implement PCIe Advanced Error Reporting (AER) support. This 
table(HEST) contains  information platform firmware supplies to OSPM for 
configuring AER support on a given root port. We understand that HEST 
stands for user to express expectations.

In the current implementation, the OS already configures a PCIE device 
based on _HPP/_HPX method when configuring a PCI device inserted into a 
hot-plug slot or initial configuration of a PCI device at system boot. 
HEST is just another way to express the desired configuration of the user.

Yours sincerely,
Leoliu-oc

> Maybe this is intended for the case where firmware retains AER
> ownership but the OS uses native hotplug (pciehp), and this is a way
> for the OS to configure new devices as the firmware expects?  But in
> that case, we still have the problem that the OS can't write to the
> AER capability to do this configuration.
> 
> Bjorn