netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 07:20:03 +0200
From:   "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
To:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@...il.com>,
        <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>,
        "Ruinskiy, Dima" <dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>,
        "Lifshits, Vitaly" <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix
 blacklist

On 1/17/2023 21:34, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/17/2023 2:26 AM, Jiajia Liu wrote:
>> I219 on HP EliteOne 840 All in One cannot work after s2idle resume
>> when the link speed is Gigabit, Wake-on-LAN is enabled and then set
>> the link down before suspend. No issue found when requesting driver
>> to configure S0ix. Add workround to let ADP_I219_LM17 use the dirver
>> configured S0ix.
>>
>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216926
>> Signed-off-by: Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> It's regarding the bug above, it looks it's causued by the ME S0ix.
>> And is there a method to make the ME S0ix path work?
No. This is a fragile approach. ME must get the message from us 
(unconfigure the device from s0ix). Otherwise, ME will continue to 
access LAN resources and the controller could get stuck.
I see two ways:
1. you always can skip s0ix flow by priv_flag
2. Especially in this case (HP platform) - please, contact HP (what is 
the ME version on this system, and how was it released...). HP will open 
a ticket with Intel. (then we can involve the ME team)
>>
> 
> No idea. It does seem better to disable S0ix if it doesn't work properly
> first though...
> 
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> index 04acd1a992fa..7ee759dbd09d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> @@ -6330,6 +6330,23 @@ static void e1000e_flush_lpic(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>   	pm_runtime_put_sync(netdev->dev.parent);
>>   }
>>   
>> +static u16 me_s0ix_blacklist[] = {
>> +	E1000_DEV_ID_PCH_ADP_I219_LM17,
>> +	0
>> +};
>> +
>> +static bool e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(const struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>> +{
>> +	u16 *list;
>> +
>> +	for (list = me_s0ix_blacklist; *list; list++) {
>> +		if (*list == adapter->pdev->device)
>> +			return true;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return false;
>> +}
> 
> The name of this function seems odd..? "check_me"? It also seems like we
> could just do a simple switch/case on the device ID or similar.
> 
> Maybe: "e1000e_device_supports_s0ix"?
> 
>> +
>>   /* S0ix implementation */
>>   static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   {
>> @@ -6337,6 +6354,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   	u32 mac_data;
>>   	u16 phy_data;
>>   
>> +	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
>> +		goto req_driver;
>> +
>>   	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>>   	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>>   		/* Request ME configure the device for S0ix */
> 
> 
> The related code also seems to already perform some set of mac checks
> here...
> 
>> @@ -6346,6 +6366,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   		trace_e1000e_trace_mac_register(mac_data);
>>   		ew32(H2ME, mac_data);
>>   	} else {
>> +req_driver:>  		/* Request driver configure the device to S0ix */
>>   		/* Disable the periodic inband message,
>>   		 * don't request PCIe clock in K1 page770_17[10:9] = 10b
>> @@ -6488,6 +6509,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   	u16 phy_data;
>>   	u32 i = 0;
>>   
>> +	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
>> +		goto req_driver;
>> +
> 
> Why not just combine this check into the statement below rather than
> adding a goto?
> 
>>   	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>>   	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>>   		/* Keep the GPT clock enabled for CSME */
>> @@ -6523,6 +6547,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   		else
>>   			e_dbg("DPG_EXIT_DONE cleared after %d msec\n", i * 10);
>>   	} else {
>> +req_driver:
>>   		/* Request driver unconfigure the device from S0ix */
>>   
>>   		/* Disable the Dynamic Power Gating in the MAC */
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> Intel-wired-lan@...osl.org
> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan

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