linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Only put >= 2015 root ports into D3 on Intel

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: <a71a662d-27a6-5c74-a44a-9538ed503a05@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 20:48:11 -0500
From:   "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Limonciello, Mario" <mlimonci@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        S-k Shyam-sundar <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
        Natikar Basavaraj <Basavaraj.Natikar@....com>,
        Deucher Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Iain Lane <iain@...ngesquash.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Only put >= 2015 root ports into D3 on Intel


On 5/17/2023 7:58 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 07:33:17AM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
>>>> AFAICT the actual issue is entirely a wakeup platform firmware sequencing
>>>> issue
>>>> while in a hardware sleep state and not PMEs.
>>>>
>>>> It's only exposed by putting the root ports into D3 over s2idle.
>>> But there are two ways to enter s2idle (well or the S0ix whatever is the
>>> AMD term for that). Either through system sleep or simply waiting that
>>> all the needed devices runtime suspend. There should be no difference
>>> from device perspective AFAICT.
> I should correct that the wakes may be configured differently, though.
>
>> On AMD all devices in runtime suspend and SoC entering system
>> suspend aren't the same state.
> Okay.
>
>>>> As an experiment on an unpatched kernel if I avoid letting amd-pmc bind then
>>>> the
>>>> hardware will never enter a hardware sleep state over Linux s2idle and this
>>>> issue
>>>> doesn't occur.
>>>>
>>>> That shows that PMEs *do* work from D3cold.
>>>>
>>>> With all of this I have to wonder if the Windows behavior of what to do with
>>>> the root
>>>> ports is tied to the uPEP requirements specified in the firmware.
>>>>
>>>> Linux doesn't do any enforcement or adjustments from what uPEP indicates.
>>>>
>>>> The uPEP constraints for the root port in question in an affected AMD system
>>>> has:
>>>>
>>>>                       Package (0x04)
>>>>                       {
>>>>                           Zero,
>>>>                           "\\_SB.PCI0.GP19",
>>>>                           Zero,
>>>>                           Zero
>>>>                       },
>>>>
>>>> AMD's parsing is through 'lpi_device_get_constraints_amd' so that structure
>>>> shows
>>>> as not enabled and doesn't specify any D-state requirements.
>>> AFAIK this object does not exist in ChromeOS so Linux cannot use it
>>> there.
>> OK that means that if we came up with a solution that utilized
>> uPEP that it would have to remain optional.
> Right.
>
>>>> What do they specify for Intel on a matching root port?
>>> I think the corresponding entry in ADL-P system for TBT PCIe root port 0
>>> looks like this:
>>>
>>> 	Package (0x03)
>>> 	{
>>> 	    "\\_SB.PC00.TRP0",
>>> 	    Zero,
>>> 	    Package (0x02)
>>> 	    {
>>> 		Zero,
>>> 		Package (0x02)
>>> 		{
>>> 		    0xFF,
>>> 		    0x03
>>> 		}
>>> 	    }
>>> 	},
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely sure what does it tell? ;-)
>> It's parsed using `lpi_device_get_constraints`.
>>
>> So should I follow it right this means for ACPI device
>> \\_SB.PC00.TRP0 the constraint is disabled.
>>
>> It's described as
>> Version 0, UID 0xFF has a minimum D-state of 3.
> I see, so it needs to be in D3 for this "constraint" to be valid.
>
>> That means my idea to try to only change D-states at
>> suspend for enabled constraints won't help.
> :(

At least on an Alder Lake P system can you check
whether your root ports actually respond
affirmatively to acpi_pci_bridge_d3() or they need
to fall back to that logic?

In my case the problematic ones don't have _PRW or
_S0W, which might explain why Windows doesn't try
to use D3 (hot or cold) for them either.

If the root ports on your current systems do respond
through acpi_pci_bridge_d3() a possible solution here
might be an allow list for systems from 2015-2018 rather
than everything > 2015.