linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/18] cxl/pci: cxl_hdm_decode

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]

Message-ID: <Z60-UF3VGPsyqHjX@rric.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:35:29 +0100
From: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
	"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>,
	Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/18] cxl/pci: cxl_hdm_decode_init: Move comment

On 12.02.25 18:09:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:53:33 +0100
> Robert Richter <rrichter@....com> wrote:
> 
> > The comment applies to the check, move it there.
> 
> I think I disagree. It was in the right place as far as I can tell.
> It is an odd place for comment, but it's kind of describing
> why it is not an error to get down there.

Ah, that was not obvious to the reader. :-)

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
> > Reviewed-by: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
> > Tested-by: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cxl/core/pci.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> > index f8e22bc278c3..c49efc419285 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> > @@ -419,6 +419,15 @@ int cxl_hdm_decode_init(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_hdm *cxlhdm,
> >  	if (!hdm)
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Per CXL 2.0 Section 8.1.3.8.3 and 8.1.3.8.4 DVSEC CXL Range 1 Base
> > +	 * [High,Low] when HDM operation is enabled the range register values
> > +	 * are ignored by the device, but the spec also recommends matching the
> > +	 * DVSEC Range 1,2 to HDM Decoder Range 0,1. So, non-zero info->ranges
> > +	 * are expected even though Linux does not require or maintain that
> > +	 * match. If at least one DVSEC range is enabled and allowed, skip HDM
> > +	 * Decoder Capability Enable.
> 
> This check is about mem_enabled. Would be fine to add another comment here to
> say.

The next patch extends the comment for more clarification (I hope so).

> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If mem_enabled is not set prior configuration is irrelevant and we
> 	 * can do what we like so enable HDM decoders and ignore DVSEC registers.
> 	 */
> > +	 */
> >  	if (!info->mem_enabled) {
> >  		rc = devm_cxl_enable_hdm(&port->dev, cxlhdm);
> >  		if (rc)
> > @@ -454,15 +463,6 @@ int cxl_hdm_decode_init(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_hdm *cxlhdm,
> >  		return -ENXIO;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Per CXL 2.0 Section 8.1.3.8.3 and 8.1.3.8.4 DVSEC CXL Range 1 Base
> > -	 * [High,Low] when HDM operation is enabled the range register values
> > -	 * are ignored by the device, but the spec also recommends matching the
> > -	 * DVSEC Range 1,2 to HDM Decoder Range 0,1. So, non-zero info->ranges
> > -	 * are expected even though Linux does not require or maintain that
> > -	 * match. If at least one DVSEC range is enabled and allowed, skip HDM
> > -	 * Decoder Capability Enable.
> > -	 */
> 
> This is the path the comment is talking about because only if we get to this
> return path are we 'skipping' the HDM decoder capability and not returning
> an error.  The path representing an HDM decoder equipped device that
> was configured by a BIOS that decided to use the DVSEC registers.
> 
> I'm not sure why we care about how the hdm decoders are programmed inthis
> case though.
> 
> I'm confused :(

There is an HDM, but it is disabled (CXL_HDM_DECODER_ENABLE is
cleared). If the DVSEC range regs do not have valid values
(!info->mem_enabled, firmware indicates it is not used), just go and
enable the HDM.

We try to use the hdm decoders here to be able to use them for a
non-auto setup. Else, decoder emulation is used
(should_emulate_decoders()) and decoders are locked
(CXL_DECODER_F_LOCK will be set).

Maybe take a look at the whole change with added comments including
patch 4/18?

I hope to not add confusion here. :-)

-Robert

> 
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_hdm_decode_init, "CXL");
>