| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e181717a-8b3f-4ad4-b075-95c95888ce5c@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:43:55 +0200
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>,
Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Peter Chen <peter.chen@...nel.org>,
Pawel Laszczak <pawell@...ence.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>
Cc: Grégory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] xhci: introduce xhci->lost_power flag
On 8.1.2025 12.59, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> On Wed Dec 18, 2024 at 6:49 PM CET, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>> On Tue Dec 17, 2024 at 10:00 PM CET, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2024 18:03, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>>>> On Thu Dec 12, 2024 at 1:37 PM CET, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2024 19:13, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>>>>>> The XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME quirk allows wrappers to signal that they
>>>>>> expect a reset after resume. It is also used by some to enforce a XHCI
>>>>>> reset on resume (see needs-reset-on-resume DT prop).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some wrappers are unsure beforehands if they will reset. Add a mechanism
>>>>>> to signal *at resume* if power has been lost. Parent devices can set
>>>>>> this flag, that defaults to false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME quirk still triggers a runtime_pm_get() on the
>>>>>> controller. This is required as we do not know if a suspend will
>>>>>> trigger a reset, so the best guess is to avoid runtime PM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
>>>>>> index 5ebde8cae4fc44cdb997b0f61314e309bda56c0d..ae2c8daa206a87da24d58a62b0a0485ebf68cdd6 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
>>>>>> @@ -1017,7 +1017,8 @@ int xhci_resume(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, pm_message_t msg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> spin_lock_irq(&xhci->lock);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - if (hibernated || xhci->quirks & XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME || xhci->broken_suspend)
>>>>>> + if (hibernated || xhci->quirks & XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME ||
>>>>>> + xhci->broken_suspend || xhci->lost_power)
>>>>>> reinit_xhc = true;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (!reinit_xhc) {
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.h b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.h
>>>>>> index 4914f0a10cff42dbc1448dcf7908534d582c848e..32526df75925989d40cbe7d59a187c945f498a30 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.h
>>>>>> @@ -1645,6 +1645,12 @@ struct xhci_hcd {
>>>>>> unsigned broken_suspend:1;
>>>>>> /* Indicates that omitting hcd is supported if root hub has no ports */
>>>>>> unsigned allow_single_roothub:1;
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Signal from upper stacks that we lost power during system-wide
>>>>>> + * suspend. Its default value is based on XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME, meaning
>>>>>> + * it is safe for wrappers to not modify lost_power at resume.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + unsigned lost_power:1;
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose this is private to XHCI driver and not legitimate to be accessed
>>>>> by another driver after HCD is instantiated?
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is private.
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't access to xhci_hcd need to be serialized via xhci->lock?
>>>>
>>>> Good question. In theory maybe. In practice I don't see how
>>>> cdns_host_resume(), called by cdns_resume(), could clash with anything
>>>> else. I'll add that to be safe.
>>>>
>>>>> Just curious, what happens if you don't include patch 4 and 5?
>>>>> Is USB functionality still broken for you?
>>>>
>>>> No it works fine. Patches 4+5 are only there to avoid the below warning.
>>>> Logging "xHC error in resume" is a lie, so I want to avoid it.
>>>
>>> How is it a lie?
>>> The XHCI controller did loose its save/restore state during a PM operation.
>>> As far as XHCI is concerned this is an error. no?
>>
>> The `xhci->quirks & XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME` is exactly the same thing;
>> both the quirk and the flag we add have for purpose:
>>
>> 1. skipping this block
>>
>> if (!reinit_xhc) {
>> retval = xhci_handshake(&xhci->op_regs->status,
>> STS_CNR, 0, 10 * 1000 * 1000);
>> // ...
>> xhci_restore_registers(xhci);
>> xhci_set_cmd_ring_deq(xhci);
>> command = readl(&xhci->op_regs->command);
>> command |= CMD_CRS;
>> writel(command, &xhci->op_regs->command);
>> if (xhci_handshake(&xhci->op_regs->status,
>> STS_RESTORE, 0, 100 * 1000)) {
>> // ...
>> }
>> }
>>
>> 2. avoiding this warning:
>>
>> xhci_warn(xhci, "xHC error in resume, USBSTS 0x%x, Reinit\n", temp);
>>
>> I don't think the block skipped is important in resume duration (to be
>> confirmed). But the xhci_warn() is not desired: we do not want to log
>> warnings if we know it is expected.
>>
>> I'll think some more about it.
>
> About this series, there were two discussions:
>
> - The desire to avoid putting the hardware init sequence of cdns3-ti
> inside runtime_resume() as we don't do runtime PM.
> *That is fine and will be fixed for the next revision.*
> See [PATCH V6 2/5]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8a1ed4be-c41c-46b6-ae25-33a6035b8c8d@kernel.org/
>
> - [PATCH V6 4/5] and [PATCH V6 5/5] are dedicated to avoiding a warning
> at XHCI resume on J7200:
>
> xhci_warn(xhci, "xHC error in resume, USBSTS 0x%x, Reinit\n", temp);
>
Adding a new quirk or private xhci_cd meme
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241210-s2r-cdns-v6-4-28a17f9715a2@bootlin.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241210-s2r-cdns-v6-5-28a17f9715a2@bootlin.com/
>
> Roger Quadros asked if we should not instead keep it, as there is
> indeed a reinit of the xHC block. I don't think we do: we don't want
> a warning at resume; IMO it would imply the reinit was unexpected.
>
> Proof is there is already a platform with a ->broken_suspend boolean
> that disables the warning even though there is a reinit. It doesn't
> log a warning as the reinit was expected.
>
> So we currently have:
> - xhci->broken_suspend: set at probe & implies the resume sequence
> won't work.
> - xhci->quirks & XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME: set at probe & implies the
> controller reset during suspend.
>
> IIUC xhci->broken_suspend is NOT equivalent to "the controller reset
> during suspend". Else we wouldn't have both the broken_suspend flag
> and the XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME quirk.
>
> In our case we want exactly the same thing as the
> XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME quirk but updated at resume depending on what
> the wrapper driver detects.
>
> We could either:
> 1. Update xhci->quirks at resume from upper layers.
> 2. Introduce a xhci->lost_power flag. It would be strictly equivalent
> to the XHCI_RESET_ON_RESUME quirk BUT updated at resume from
> upper layers.
>
> @Mathias Nyman: what is your thought on the matter? Option (2) was
> the one taken in this series. Is there another option I am missing?
This would be a fourth way the upper layers inform xhci_resume() that the
xHC host should be reset instead of restoring the registers.
option 1 creates the first dynamic xhci->quirk flag,
option 2 adds a xhci->lost_power flag that is touched outside of xhci driver.
Neither seem like a good idea just to get rid of a dev_warn() message.
Maybe its time to split xhci_resume() into xhci_reset_resume()
and xhci_restore_resume(), and let those upper layers decide what they need.
Doesn't cdns driver already have a xhci_plat_priv resume_quirk() function
called during xhci_plat_resume(), before xhci_resume()?
Can that be used?
Thanks
Mathias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists