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: <14ac1391-9ab9-d352-d3b1-ba6caae3d9df@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 13:56:25 -0700
From:   Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, oohall@...il.com,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Fontenot Nathan <Nathan.Fontenot@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI: pciehp: Add support for OS-First Hotplug and
 AER/DPC

On 5/15/2023 12:38 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:20:42PM -0700, Smita Koralahalli wrote:
>> On 5/11/2023 8:23 AM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>>> Subject: [PATCH] PCI: pciehp: Disable Surprise Down Error reporting
>>>
[...]
>>
>> I have logged in the status registers after the device is removed in
>> pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change().
> [...]
>> Section 6.2.3.2.2 in PCIe Spec v6.0 has also mentioned that:
>> "If an individual error is masked when it is detected, its error status bit
>> is still affected, but no error reporting Message is sent to the Root
>> Complex, and the error is not recorded in the Header Log, TLP Prefix Log, or
>> First Error Pointer"..
> 
> Thanks for the thorough testing.  So the error is logged and next time
> a reporting message for a different error is sent to the Root Complex,
> that earlier Surprise Down Error will be seen and you'd get belated
> log messages for it, is that what you're saying?

Yes, thereby confusing user on a false error.
> 
> I guess I could amend the patch to let pciehp unconditionally clear
> the Surprise Down Error Status bit upon a DLLSC event.

OK. First, mask the uncorrected AER status register for surprise down 
during initialization and then clear all status registers 
unconditionally including DPC_RP_PIO and others inside 
pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change()..?

Could I please know, why do you think masking surprise down during 
initialization would be a better approach than reading surprise down 
error status on a DPC event? Because in both approaches we should be 
however clearing status registers right?

> 
> Does the patch otherwise do what you want, i.e. no irritating messages
> and no extra delay incurred by AER/DPC handling?

no irritating messages and no delay as there is no DPC error logged now.

Thanks,
Smita
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Lukas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ