linux-kernel - Re: Question: Clearing error bits in the root port post enumeration

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: <20231103182053.GA160440@bhelgaas>
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 13:20:53 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        Vikram Sethi <vsethi@...dia.com>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Krishna Thota <kthota@...dia.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question: Clearing error bits in the root port post enumeration

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:26:31PM +0000, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I would like to know your comments on the following scenario where
> we are observing the root port logging errors because of the
> enumeration flow being followed.
> 
> DUT information:
> - Has a root port and an endpoint connected to it
> - Uses ECAM mechanism to access the configuration space
> - Booted through ACPI flow
> - Has a Firmware-First approach for handling the errors
> - System is configured to treat Unsupported Requests as
>   AdvisoryNon-Fatal errors
> 
> As we all know, when a configuration read request comes in for a
> device number that is not implemented, a UR would be returned as per
> the PCIe spec.
> 
> As part of the enumeration flow on DUT, when the kernel reads offset
> 0x0 of B:D:F=0:0:0, the root port responds with its valid Vendor-ID
> and Device-ID values.  But, when B:D:F=0:1:0 is probed, since there
> is no device present there, the root port responds with an
> Unsupported Request and simultaneously logs the same in the Device
> Status register (i.e. bit-3).  Because of it, there is a UR logged
> in the Device Status register of the RP by the time enumeration is
> complete.
> 
> In the case of AER capability natively owned by the kernel, the AER
> driver's init call would clear all such pending bits.
> 
> Since we are going with the Firmware-First approach, and the system
> is configured to treat Unsupported Requests as AdvisoryNon-Fatal
> errors, only a correctable error interrupt can be raised to the
> Firmware which takes care of clearing the corresponding status
> registers.  The firmware can't know about the UnsupReq bit being set
> as the interrupt it received is for a correctable error hence it
> clears only bits related to correctable error.
> 
> All these events leave a freshly booted system with the following
> bits set.
> 
> Secondary status: 66MHz- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort+ <SERR- <PERR-          (MAbort)
> DevSta: CorrErr- NonFatalErr- FatalErr- UnsupReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend-                                                              (UnsupReq)
> UESta:  DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol-   (UnsupReq)
> 
> Since the reason for UR is well understood at this point, I would
> like to weigh in on the idea of clearing the aforementioned bits in
> the root port once the enumeration is done particularly to cater to
> the configurations where Firmware-First approach is in place.
> Please let me know your comments on this approach.

I think Secondary status (PCI_SEC_STATUS) is always owned by the OS
and is not affected by _OSC negotiation, right?  Linux does basically
nothing with that today, but I think it *could* clear the "Received
Master Abort" bit.

I'm not very familiar with Advisory Non-Fatal errors.  I'm curious
about the UESta situation: why can't firmware know about UnsupReq
being set?  I assume PCI_ERR_COR_ADV_NFAT is the Correctable Error
Status bit the firmware *does* see and clear.

But isn't the whole point of Advisory Non-Fatal errors that an error
that is logged as an Uncorrectable Error and that normally would be
signaled with ERR_NONFATAL is signaled with ERR_COR instead?  So
doesn't PCI_ERR_COR_ADV_NFAT being set imply that some
PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS must be set as well?  If so, I would think
firmware *could* figure that out and clear the PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS
bit.

Bjorn