linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: Configure root port MPS to hardware maximum during host probing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aAuSXhmRiKQabjLO@ryzen>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 15:47:10 +0200
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
To: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	heiko@...ech.de, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
	manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, yue.wang@...ogic.com,
	pali@...nel.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
	jingoohan1@...il.com, khilman@...libre.com, jbrunet@...libre.com,
	martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: Configure root port MPS to hardware maximum
 during host probing

Hello Hans,

On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 06:56:53PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> 
> But I discovered a problem:
> 
> 0001:90:00.0 PCI bridge: Device 1f6c:0001 (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>          ......
>          Capabilities: [c0] Express (v2) Root Port (Slot-), MSI 00
>                  DevCap: MaxPayload 512 bytes, PhantFunc 0
>                          ExtTag- RBE+
>                  DevCtl: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr+ FatalErr+ UnsupReq+
>                          RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+
>                          MaxPayload 512 bytes, MaxReadReq 1024 bytes
> 
> 
> 
> 			Should the DevCtl MaxPayload be 256B?
> 
> But I tested that the file reading and writing were normal. Is the display
> of 512B here what we expected?
> 
> Root Port 0003:30:00.0 has the same problem. May I ask what your opinion is?
> 
> 
> 		......
> 0001:91:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
> NVMe SSD Controller PM9A1/PM9A3/980PRO (prog-if 02 [NVM Express])
>          ......
>          Capabilities: [70] Express (v2) Endpoint, MSI 00
>                  DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s
> unlimited, L1 unlimited
>                          ExtTag+ AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE+ FLReset+
> SlotPowerLimit 0W
>                  DevCtl: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr+ FatalErr+ UnsupReq+
>                          RlxdOrd+ ExtTag+ PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+
> FLReset-
>                          MaxPayload 256 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes
> 		......

Here we see that the bridge has a higher DevCtl.MPS than the DevCap.MPS of
the endpoint.

Let me quote Bjorn from the previous mail thread:

"""
  - I don't think it's safe to set MPS higher in all cases.  If we set
    the Root Port MPS=256, and an Endpoint only supports MPS=128, the
    Endpoint may do a 256-byte DMA read (assuming its MRRS>=256).  In
    that case the RP may respond with a 256-byte payload the Endpoint
    can't handle.
"""



I think the problem with this patch is that pcie_write_mps() call in
pci_host_probe() is done after the pci_scan_root_bus_bridge() call in
pci_host_probe().

So pci_configure_mps() (called by pci_configure_device()),
which does the limiting of the bus to what the endpoint supports,
is actually called before the pcie_write_mps() call added by this patch
(which increases DevCtl.MPS for the bridge).


So I think the code added in this patch needs to be executed before
pci_configure_device() is done for the EP.

It appears that pci_configure_device() is called for each device
during scan, first for the bridges and then for the EPs.

So I think something like this should work (totally untested):

--- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
@@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ struct pci_domain_busn_res {
        int domain_nr;
 };
 
+static void pcie_write_mps(struct pci_dev *dev, int mps);
+
 static struct resource *get_pci_domain_busn_res(int domain_nr)
 {
        struct pci_domain_busn_res *r;
@@ -2178,6 +2180,11 @@ static void pci_configure_mps(struct pci_dev *dev)
                return;
        }
 
+       if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT &&
+           pcie_bus_config != PCIE_BUS_TUNE_OFF) {
+               pcie_write_mps(dev, 128 << dev->pcie_mpss);
+       }
+
        if (!bridge || !pci_is_pcie(bridge))
                return;



But we would probably need to move some code to avoid the
forward declaration.


Kind regards,
Niklas