netdev - Re: Request for advice on where to put Root Complex "fix up" code for downstream device

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: <20150529162021.GA12733@google.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2015 11:20:21 -0500
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Request for advice on where to put Root Complex "fix up" code
 for downstream device

Hi Casey,

Sorry, this one slipped through and I forgot to respond earlier.

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:31:58PM +0000, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Bjorn Helgaas [bhelgaas@...gle.com]
> | Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 4:04 PM
> | 
> | There are a lot of fixups in drivers/pci/quirks.c.  For things that have to
> | be worked around either before a driver claims the device or if there is no
> | driver at all, the fixup *has* to go in drivers/pci/quirks.c
> | 
> | But for things like this, where the problem can only occur after a driver
> | claims the device, I think it makes more sense to put the fixup in the
> | driver itself.  The only wrinkle here is that the fixup has to be done on a
> | separate device, not the device claimed by the driver.  But I think it
> | probably still makes sense to put this fixup in the driver.
> 
>   Okay, the example code that I provided (still quoted below) was indeed
> done as a fix within the cxgb4 Network Driver.  I've also worked up a
> version as a PCI Quirk but if you and David Miller agree that the fixup
> code should go into cxgb4, I'm comfortable with that.  I can also provide
> the example PCI Quirk code I worked up if you like.
> 
>   One complication to doing this in cxgb4 is that it attaches to Physical
> Function 4 of our T5 chip.  Meanwhile, a completely separate storage
> driver, csiostor, connections to PF5 and PF6 and there's no
> requirement at all that cxgb4 be loaded.  So if we go down the road of
> putting the fixup code in the cxgb4 driver, we'll also need to duplicate
> that code in the csiostor driver.

Sounds simpler to just put the quirk in drivers/pci/quirks.c.

> | > +static void clear_root_complex_tlp_attributes(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> | > +{
> | > +     struct pci_bus *bus = pdev->bus;
> | > +     struct pci_dev *highest_pcie_bridge = NULL;
> | > +
> | > +     while (bus) {
> | > +             struct pci_dev *bridge = bus->self;
> | > +
> | > +             if (!bridge || !bridge->pcie_cap)
> | > +                     break;
> | > +             highest_pcie_bridge = bridge;
> | > +             bus = bus->parent;
> | > +     }
> | 
> | Can you use pci_upstream_bridge() here?  There are a couple places where we
> | want to find the Root Port, so we might factor that out someday.  It'll be
> | easier to find all those places if they use with pci_upstream_bridge().
> 
> It looks like pci_upstream_bridge() just traverses one like upstream toward the
> Root Complex?  Or am I misunderstanding that function?

No, you're right.  I was just trying to suggest using pci_upstream_bridge()
instead of bus->parent->self in your loop.  It wouldn't replace the loop
completely.

Bjorn
--
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