linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch v1 0/3] Fix using wrong GPF DVSEC location issue

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: <0f537373-7a71-49a5-a4d3-8adb0ef41349@zohomail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:55:42 +0800
From: Li Ming <ming.li@...omail.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
 alison.schofield@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch v1 0/3] Fix using wrong GPF DVSEC location issue

On 3/21/2025 11:59 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025, Li Ming wrote:
>>
>>> But I am not sure if all dports under a same port will have same
>>> configuration space layout, if yes, that will not be a problem. If I am
>>> wrong, please let me know, thanks.
>>
>> Yes, when caching the dvsec was suggested, it was my assumption that the
>> config space would be the same.
>
> Ultimately I don't know what the expectation is here, but your updates
> do allow more flexibility from vendors, I guess(?). It's a bit late
> in the cycle, unfortunately, so if these are to go in for v6.15, they
> would be considered a fix imo, otherwise perhaps they are wanted for
> v6.16 or not at all (patch 3 does look useful regardless)?

My understanding is that the expectation of the patchset is to avoid using a wrong GPF DVSEC in case of dports under a same port have different config space layout. And I think the change is more closely to the description of CXL spec.

If the case(dports under a same port have different config space layout) would not happen, maybe add a comment in cxl_gpf_port_setup() is another option.

Yes, if patch 1 & 2 are considered to be merged, they are worth a fix tag. And patch 3 is an obvious cleanup change.

>
> Based on some of the topologies listed in qemu, I did some testing (and
> this was also why the same dvsec config layout) and see things working as
> expected.

Thanks for testing.


Ming

[snip]