linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] PCI: make pci_dev_is_disconnected() helper public for other drivers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:03:49 +0800
From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 robin.murphy@....com, jgg@...pe.ca, kevin.tian@...el.com,
 dwmw2@...radead.org, will@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de, yi.l.liu@...el.com,
 dan.carpenter@...aro.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 Haorong Ye <yehaorong@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] PCI: make pci_dev_is_disconnected() helper public
 for other drivers

On 3/1/2024 6:33 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:58:43AM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>> On 2/27/2024 7:05 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 08:54:54PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>>>> On 2024/2/22 17:02, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>>>>> Make pci_dev_is_disconnected() public so that it can be called from
>>>>> Intel VT-d driver to quickly fix/workaround the surprise removal
>>>>> unplug hang issue for those ATS capable devices on PCIe switch downstream
>>>>> hotplug capable ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beside pci_device_is_present() function, this one has no config space
>>>>> space access, so is light enough to optimize the normal pure surprise
>>>>> removal and safe removal flow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested-by: Haorong Ye<yehaorong@...edance.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/pci/pci.h   | 5 -----
>>>>>     include/linux/pci.h | 5 +++++
>>>>>     2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>> Hi PCI subsystem maintainers,
>>>>
>>>> The iommu drivers (including, but not limited to, the Intel VT-d driver)
>>>> require a helper to check the physical presence of a PCI device in two
>>>> scenarios:
>>>>
>>>> - During the iommu_release_device() path: This ensures the device is
>>>>     physically present before sending device TLB invalidation to device.
>>> This wording is fundamentally wrong.  Testing
>>> pci_dev_is_disconnected() can never ensure the device will still be
>>> present by the time a TLB invalidation is sent.
>> The logic of testing pci_dev_is_disconnected() in patch [2/3] works
>> in the opposite:
>>
>> 1. if pci_dev_is_disconnected() return true, means the device is in
>>     the process of surprise removal handling, adapter already been
>>     removed from the slot.
>>
>> 2. for removed device, no need to send ATS invalidation request to it.
>>     removed device lost power, its devTLB wouldn't be valid anymore.
>>
>> 3. if pci_dev_is_disconnected() return false, the device is *likely*
>>     to be removed at any momoment after this function called.
>>     such case will be treated in the iommu ITE fault handling, not to
>>     retry the timeout request if device isn't present (patch [3/3]).
>>
>>> The device may be removed after the pci_dev_is_disconnected() test and
>>> before a TLB invalidate is sent.
>> even in the process while TLB is invalidating.
>>
>>> This is why I hesitate to expose pci_dev_is_disconnected() (and
>>> pci_device_is_present(), which we already export) outside
>>> drivers/pci/.  They both lead to terrible mistakes like relying on the
>>> false assumption that the result will remain valid after the functions
>>> return, without any recognition that we MUST be able to deal with the
>>> cases where that assumption is broken.
>> Yup, your concern is worthy ,but isn't happening within this patchset.
> OK, I acked the patch.

Great !

>
> I guess my complaint is really with pci_device_is_present() because
> that's even harder to use correctly.
>
> pci_device_is_present():
>    slow (may do config access to device)
>    true  => device *was* present in the recent past, may not be now
>    false => device is not accessible

so the 'false' result is reliable for post-calling code, then give up
more attempt of the same request. the usage in patch[3/3]

>
> pci_dev_is_disconnected():
>    fast (doesn't touch device)
>    true  => device is not accessible

also we are relying on the 'true' result returned, used in  patch[2/3].

>    false => basically means nothing
>
> I guess they're both hard ;)

seems I didn't mess them up. :)

Thanks,
Ethan

>
> Bjorn