| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 02:40:31 +0000
From: "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...el.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>, "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>, "Luck, Tony"
<tony.luck@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "dave@...olabs.net"
<dave@...olabs.net>, "jonathan.cameron@...wei.com"
<jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>, "Verma, Vishal L"
<vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "helgaas@...nel.org"
<helgaas@...nel.org>, "mahesh@...ux.ibm.com" <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
"oohall@...il.com" <oohall@...il.com>, "linmiaohe@...wei.com"
<linmiaohe@...wei.com>, "shiju.jose@...wei.com" <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
"Preble, Adam C" <adam.c.preble@...el.com>, "lukas@...ner.de"
<lukas@...ner.de>, "Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com"
<Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>, "rrichter@....com"
<rrichter@....com>, "linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Tsaur, Erwin"
<erwin.tsaur@...el.com>, "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Wanyan, Feiting" <feiting.wanyan@...el.com>, "Wang, Yudong"
<yudong.wang@...el.com>, "Peng, Chao P" <chao.p.peng@...el.com>,
"qingshun.wang@...ux.intel.com" <qingshun.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 3/3] PCI/AER: Clear UNCOR_STATUS bits that might be
ANFE
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] PCI/AER: Clear UNCOR_STATUS bits that might
>be ANFE
>
>
>On 5/9/24 1:48 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> When processing an ANFE, ideally both correctable error(CE) status and
>> uncorrectable error(UE) status should be cleared. However, there is no
>> way to fully identify the UE associated with ANFE. Even worse, Non-Fatal
>> Error(NFE) may set the same UE status bit as ANFE. Treating an ANFE as
>> NFE will bring some issues, i.e., breaking softwore probing; treating
>/s/softwore/software
Good catch, will fix. It's strange 'checkpatch --codespell' doesn't catch this.
>
>May be this is already discussed. But can you explain why treating
>AFNE as non-fatal error will bring probing issues?
Copied below from spec 6.1, 6.2.3.2.4, says it can results in a System Error.
In some cases the detector of a non-fatal error is not the most appropriate agent to determine whether the error is
recoverable or not, or if it even needs any recovery action at all. For example, if software attempts to perform a
configuration read from a non-existent device or Function, the resulting UR Status in the Completion will signal the error
to software, and software does not need for the Completer in addition to signal the error by sending an ERR_NONFATAL
Message. In fact, on some platforms, signaling the error with ERR_NONFATAL results in a System Error, which breaks
normal software probing.
>> NFE as ANFE will make us ignoring some UEs which need active recover
>/s/ignoring/ignore
Will fix.
>> operation. To avoid clearing UEs that are not ANFE by accident, the
>> most conservative route is taken here: If any of the NFE Detected bits
>> is set in Device Status, do not touch UE status, they should be cleared
>> later by the UE handler. Otherwise, a specific set of UEs that may be
>> raised as ANFE according to the PCIe specification will be cleared if
>> their corresponding severity is Non-Fatal.
>>
>> For instance, previously when kernel receives an ANFE with Poisoned TLP
>> in OS native AER mode, only status of CE will be reported and cleared:
>>
>> AER: Correctable error message received from 0000:b7:02.0
>> PCIe Bus Error: severity=Correctable, type=Transaction Layer, (Receiver ID)
>> device [8086:0db0] error status/mask=00002000/00000000
>> [13] NonFatalErr
>>
>> If the kernel receives a Malformed TLP after that, two UEs will be
>> reported, which is unexpected. Malformed TLP Header is lost since
>> the previous ANFE gated the TLP header logs:
>>
>> PCIe Bus Error: severity="Uncorrectable (Fatal), type=Transaction Layer,
>(Receiver ID)
>> device [8086:0db0] error status/mask=00041000/00180020
>> [12] TLP (First)
>> [18] MalfTLP
>>
>> Now, for the same scenario, both CE status and related UE status will be
>> reported and cleared after ANFE:
>>
>> AER: Correctable error message received from 0000:b7:02.0
>> PCIe Bus Error: severity=Correctable, type=Transaction Layer, (Receiver ID)
>> device [8086:0db0] error status/mask=00002000/00000000
>> [13] NonFatalErr
>> Uncorrectable errors that may cause Advisory Non-Fatal:
>> [18] TLP
>>
>> Tested-by: Yudong Wang <yudong.wang@...el.com>
>> Co-developed-by: "Wang, Qingshun" <qingshun.wang@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: "Wang, Qingshun" <qingshun.wang@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 7 ++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> index ed435f09ac27..6a6a3a40569a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>> @@ -1115,9 +1115,14 @@ static void pci_aer_handle_error(struct
>pci_dev *dev, struct aer_err_info *info)
>> * Correctable error does not need software intervention.
>> * No need to go through error recovery process.
>> */
>> - if (aer)
>> + if (aer) {
>> pci_write_config_dword(dev, aer +
>PCI_ERR_COR_STATUS,
>> info->status);
>> + if (info->anfe_status)
>> + pci_write_config_dword(dev,
>> + aer +
>PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS,
>> + info->anfe_status);
>> + }
>
>Why split the handling part and storing part into two patches? Why not
>merge
>this part of patch 1/3.
This is based on Bjorn's suggestion at https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg149012.html,
clearing UNCOR_STATUS might be more important, deserve to raise out.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists