linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] PCI: Add additional checks for flr and pm reset

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: <20250825155420.2ace4847.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 15:54:20 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, helgaas@...nel.org, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com,
 mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] PCI: Add additional checks for flr and pm reset

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:12:19 -0700
Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> If a device is in an error state, then any reads of device registers can
> return error value. Add addtional checks to validate if a device is in an
> error state before doing an flr or pm reset.

I think the thing we see in practice for a device that's wedged and
returning -1 from config space is that the FLR will timeout waiting for
a pending transaction.  So this should fix that, but should we log
something?

I'm assuming AF FLR is not needed here because we don't cache the
offset and therefore won't find the capability when we search the chain
for it.

> Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pci.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> index 0dd95d782022..a07bdb287cf3 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> @@ -4560,12 +4560,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pcie_flr);
>   */
>  int pcie_reset_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, bool probe)
>  {
> +	u32 reg;
> +
>  	if (dev->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_FLR_RESET)
>  		return -ENOTTY;
>  
>  	if (!(dev->devcap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_FLR))
>  		return -ENOTTY;
>  
> +	if (pcie_capability_read_dword(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP, &reg))
> +		return -ENOTTY;
> +
>  	if (probe)
>  		return 0;
>  
> @@ -4640,6 +4645,8 @@ static int pci_pm_reset(struct pci_dev *dev, bool probe)
>  		return -ENOTTY;
>  
>  	pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->pm_cap + PCI_PM_CTRL, &csr);
> +	if (PCI_POSSIBLE_ERROR(csr))
> +		return -ENOTTY;

Doesn't this turn out to be redundant to the test below?

>  	if (csr & PCI_PM_CTRL_NO_SOFT_RESET)
>  		return -ENOTTY;
>  

Thanks,
Alex