| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:30:10 -0300
From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
Cc: Dimitrios Michailidis <dm@...lsio.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxgb4: fix probe when already with invalid parameters
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:25:42PM -0700, Casey Leedom wrote:
> I think I know what's happening. You mentioned that you're doing
> a "netboot" so it's probably using PF0..3 for the network boot
> (depending on the port being booted from) and is failing to issue a
> BYE command. When cxgb4 comes along it gets MASTER (because
> presumably the "netboot" said it didn't want to be MASTER) and the
> chip/firmware is reported as being Already Initialized. The
> "netboot" here seems to be pretty crazy though since the above
> scenario would require it to explicitly refuse to be MASTER and fail
> to issue a BYE command.
>
> Which "netboot" are you using and what's the version number, etc.?
>
That will take me a while to get answered. I'll see if I can find who
wrote that code, but it's a driver for Open Firmware on IBM Power
Systems. I am not really sure this is the cause, but that's what was
reported to me.
By the way, what exactly are the tons of problems with my patch,
considering the change I proposed, ie, checking that it's the MASTER?
What scenarios could it get wrong? Do you suggest any further checking?
Cascardo.
> Casey
>
>
> On 03/19/14 15:13, Casey Leedom wrote:
> >Okay, that firmware is recent enough but Dimitris is right, the
> >patch has a ton of problems. This section of code is very tricky
> >and we've worked hard to get it right. The firmware also has
> >special code in it to ~try to catch~ cases where a previous driver
> >on the same PF failed to issue a BYE command. When the firmware
> >sees a new HELLO command come in from a PF and that PF is already
> >"registered" (via a previous HELLO command), if it's the _only_ PF
> >"registered" and the new HELLO command provides the Clear
> >Initialized flag, then the firmware will assume a missing BYE and
> >automatically "de-initialize" the firmware/chip. So it's Very
> >Weird that you're getting a PF is MASTER and Chip/Firmware is
> >Initialized return.
> >
> >Casey
> >
> >On 03/19/14 14:57, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> >>On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:38:49PM +0000, Dimitrios Michailidis wrote:
> >>>Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> >>>>Since commit 636f9d371f70f22961fd598fe18380057518ca31 ("cxgb4: Add
> >>>>support for T4 configuration file"), we have problems when probing the
> >>>>device, and finding out it's already initialized, but does not have
> >>>>valid buffer sizes setup.
> >>>>
> >>>>This may happen with kexec without shutdown, or bad firmware or
> >>>>bootloader.
> >>>>
> >>>>The usual symptom is that probe fails:
> >>>>
> >>>>[ 2.605494] cxgb4 0000:50:00.4: Coming up as MASTER:
> >>>>Adapter already
> >>>>initialized
> >>>>[ 2.605511] cxgb4 0000:50:00.4: bad SGE FL page buffer sizes [0, 0]
> >>>>[ 2.625629] cxgb4: probe of 0000:50:00.4 failed with error -22
> >>>>
> >>>>The solution is to treat the adapter as not initialized in case the
> >>>>parameters are invalid.
> >>>The patch doesn't look right to me. Besides reinitializing
> >>>the device when it finds
> >>>disagreeable settings it disregards that this PF may not be in
> >>>charge of the device.
> >>>If the controlling PF (what the code calls master) selects
> >>>values this PF doesn't like
> >>>with the patch it will elevate itself to master and install
> >>>its own preferences.
> >>>
> >>>Also not right of course is that FW is claiming the device is
> >>>initialized when clearly it isn't.
> >>>Can you tell me which FW version is involved here and what
> >>>steps got the device in this state?
> >>>
> >>We are trying to netboot, so it's possibly a problem on the Open
> >>Firmware driver that makes it not send FW BYE before handling the CPU to
> >>the bootloader. I could easily reproduce a similar situation by removing
> >>the call to t4_fw_bye during the driver remove path, and reloading the
> >>driver without commit 940d9d34a5467c2e2574866eb009d4cb61e27299 ("cxgb4:
> >>allow large buffer size to have page size").
> >>
> >>The firmware I am using is:
> >>firmware-version: 1.9.23.0, TP 0.1.9.1
> >>
> >>How about the change below?
> >>
> >>If that's OK, I'll send a v2.
> >>
> >>Cascardo.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
> >>>><cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>>---
> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c | 34
> >>>>+++++++++++++---------
> >>>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c
> >>>>b/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c
> >>>>index 34e2488..d0638f9 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c
> >>>>@@ -5237,13 +5237,27 @@ static int adap_init0(struct adapter *adap)
> >>>> * master initialization), note that we're living with existing
> >>>> * adapter parameters. Otherwise, it's time to try
> >>>>initializing the
> >>>> * adapter ...
> >>>>+ *
> >>>>+ * If we're living with non-hard-coded parameters (either from a
> >>>>+ * Firmware Configuration File or values programmed by
> >>>>a different PF
> >>>>+ * Driver), give the SGE code a chance to pull in
> >>>>anything that it
> >>>>+ * needs ... Note that this must be called after we
> >>>>retrieve our VPD
> >>>>+ * parameters in order to know how to convert core
> >>>>ticks to seconds.
> >>>> */
> >>>> if (state == DEV_STATE_INIT) {
> >>>> dev_info(adap->pdev_dev, "Coming up as %s: "\
> >>>> "Adapter already initialized\n",
> >>>> adap->flags & MASTER_PF ? "MASTER" : "SLAVE");
> >>>> adap->flags |= USING_SOFT_PARAMS;
> >>>>- } else {
> >>>>+ ret = t4_sge_init(adap);
> >>>>+ if (ret == -EINVAL) {
> >>- if (ret == -EINVAL) {
> >>+ if (ret == -EINVAL && adap->flags & MASTER_PF) {
> >>
> >>>>+ adap->flags &= ~USING_SOFT_PARAMS;
> >>>>+ state = DEV_STATE_UNINIT;
> >>>>+ } else if (ret < 0) {
> >>>>+ goto bye;
> >>>>+ }
> >>>>+ }
> >>>>+ if (state != DEV_STATE_INIT) {
> >>>> dev_info(adap->pdev_dev, "Coming up as MASTER: "\
> >>>> "Initializing adapter\n");
> >>>>
> >>>>@@ -5300,19 +5314,11 @@ static int adap_init0(struct adapter *adap)
> >>>> -ret);
> >>>> goto bye;
> >>>> }
> >>>>- }
> >>>>-
> >>>>- /*
> >>>>- * If we're living with non-hard-coded parameters (either from a
> >>>>- * Firmware Configuration File or values programmed by
> >>>>a different PF
> >>>>- * Driver), give the SGE code a chance to pull in
> >>>>anything that it
> >>>>- * needs ... Note that this must be called after we
> >>>>retrieve our VPD
> >>>>- * parameters in order to know how to convert core
> >>>>ticks to seconds.
> >>>>- */
> >>>>- if (adap->flags & USING_SOFT_PARAMS) {
> >>>>- ret = t4_sge_init(adap);
> >>>>- if (ret < 0)
> >>>>- goto bye;
> >>>>+ if (adap->flags & USING_SOFT_PARAMS) {
> >>>>+ ret = t4_sge_init(adap);
> >>>>+ if (ret < 0)
> >>>>+ goto bye;
> >>>>+ }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> if (is_bypass_device(adap->pdev->device))
> >>>>--
> >>>>1.7.1
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists