PCI/AER: Do not clear AER bits if we don't own AER
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 PCI/AER: Do not clear AER bits if we don't own AER
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. This happens unconditionally on device probe(). Clearing AER bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss errors. Instead these bits should get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI _HPX method.
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, as it is not easy to reasonably demonstrate it in testing.
--- drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +3 -0
@@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ; + pos = dev->aer_cap;if (!pos)return -EIO ;
Signature · 1 line
2.14.3
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 387
Quoted 2 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +2
-0+if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ;
Can you move this to closer to the caller pci_aer_init()?
Quoted 6 lines · Sinan Kaya
Quoted 2 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
+ if (
pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(dev))
+ return-EIO;Can you move this to closer to the caller
pci_aer_init()?
I could move it there. although pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs() is called directly from pci_restore_state. Of course, aer_cap should be zero in this case, and we'd still bail out. I find the intent clearer if we check it here rather than having to do the mental parsing of the state of aer_cap.
Alex
Quoted 1 line · Alex G.
I find the intent clearer if we check it here rather than having to do the mental parsing of the state of
aer_cap.
I don't feel too strong about my comment to be honest. This was a style/maintenance comment.
It feels like we are putting pcie_aer_get_firmware_first() into core functions unnecessarily after your change. I understand the need for your change. I'm asking if it is the right place or not.
pcie_aer_get_firmware_first() should be called from either the init or probe function so that the rest of the AER functions do not get called from any other context.
If someone adds another AER function, we might need to add another pcie_aer_get_firmware_first() check there. So, we have unnecessary code duplication.
Quoted 11 lines · Sinan Kaya
Quoted 1 line · Alex G.
I find the intent clearer if we check it here rather than having to do the mental parsing of the state of
aer_cap.I don't feel too strong about my comment to be honest. This was a style/maintenance comment.
It feels like we are putting
pcie_aer_get_firmware_first()into core functions unnecessarily after your change. I understand the need for your change. I'm asking if it is the right place or not.
Quoted 7 lines
pcie_aer_get_firmware_first()should be called from either the init or probe function so that the rest of the AER functions do not get called from any other context.If someone adds another AER function, we might need to add another
pcie_aer_get_firmware_first()check there. So, we have unnecessary code duplication.
We could move the aer_cap and get_ffs() check into one function that we end up calling all over the place. I understand your concern about code duplication, and I agree with it. I don't think that at this point it's that big of a deal, although we might need to guard every aer_() call.
So moving all the checks in a pcie_aer_is_kernel_first() makes sense.
Alex
PATCH v2 1/1 PCI/AER: Do not clear AER bits if we don't own AER
In reply to Alexandru GagniucWhen we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. Clearing error bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss some errors. In theory, these bits get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI _HPX method. These mechanisms are not subject to the problem.
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, since I can't reasonably demonstrate this race in the lab.
On a side-note, pcie_aer_is_kernel_first() is created to alleviate the need for two checks: aer_cap and get_firmware_first().
--- drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +10 -7
@@ -307,6 +307,12 @@ int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev)aer_set_firmware_first (dev);return dev->__aer_firmware_first; } + +static bool pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (struct pci_dev *dev) +{ +return !!dev->aer_cap && !pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev); +} +#define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \ PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)
@@ -337,10 +343,7 @@ bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void)int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) -return -EIO ; - -if (!dev->aer_cap) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;return pcie_capability_set_word (dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL ,PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS );
@@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);int pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ; return pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,
@@ -383,10 +386,10 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ; - pos = dev->aer_cap; -if (!pos) +if (pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ; + pos = dev->aer_cap; port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);
Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
Quoted 55 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. Clearing error bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss some errors. In theory, these bits get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI
_HPXmethod. These mechanisms are not subject to the problem.This race is mostly of theoretical significance, since I can't reasonably demonstrate this race in the lab.
On a side-note,
pcie_aer_is_kernel_first()is created to alleviate the need for two checks:aer_capandget_firmware_first().Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>--- drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +8
-5@@ -307,6 +307,12 @@ int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev)aer_set_firmware_first (dev);return dev->__aer_firmware_first; } + +static bool pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (struct pci_dev *dev) +{ +return !!dev->aer_cap && !pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev); +} +#define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \ PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)@@ -337,10 +343,7 @@ bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void)int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) -return -EIO ; - -if (!dev->aer_cap) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;return pcie_capability_set_word (dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL ,PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS );@@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);int pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ; return pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 389
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-2@@ -383,10 +386,10 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ; - pos = dev->aer_cap; -if (!pos) +if (pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))
This here is missing a '!'. It's in my local branch, so I must have exported the patch before I fixed that. I'll get that fixed next rev.
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-0return -EIO ; + pos = dev->aer_cap; port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);
PATCH v3 1/1 PCI/AER: Do not clear AER bits if we don't own AER
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. Clearing error bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss some errors. In theory, these bits get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI _HPX method. These mechanisms are not subject to the problem.
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, since I can't reasonably demonstrate this race in the lab.
On a side-note, pcie_aer_is_kernel_first() is created to alleviate the need for two checks: aer_cap and get_firmware_first().
---
Changes since v2:
- Added missing negation in pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs()
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +10 -7
@@ -307,6 +307,12 @@ int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev)aer_set_firmware_first (dev);return dev->__aer_firmware_first; } + +static bool pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (struct pci_dev *dev) +{ +return !!dev->aer_cap && !pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev); +} +#define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \ PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)
@@ -337,10 +343,7 @@ bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void)int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) -return -EIO ; - -if (!dev->aer_cap) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;return pcie_capability_set_word (dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL ,PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS );
@@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);int pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ; return pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,
@@ -383,10 +386,10 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ; - pos = dev->aer_cap; -if (!pos) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ; + pos = dev->aer_cap; port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);
Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
Quoted 4 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. Clearing error bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss some errors. In theory, these bits get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI
_HPXmethod. These mechanisms are not subject to the problem.
What's FFS?
I guess you mean FFS and _HPX are not subject to the problem because they're supplied by firmware, so firmware would be responsible for looking at the bits before clearing them?
Quoted 20 lines
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, since I can't reasonably demonstrate this race in the lab.
On a side-note,
pcie_aer_is_kernel_first()is created to alleviate the need for two checks:aer_capandget_firmware_first().Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>---
Changes since v2:
- Added missing negation inpci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs()drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 314
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +5
-0@@ -307,6 +307,12 @@ int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev)aer_set_firmware_first (dev);return dev->__aer_firmware_first; } + +static bool pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (struct pci_dev *dev) +{ +return !!dev->aer_cap && !pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev); +}
I think it complicates things to have both "firmware_first" and "kernel_first" interfaces, so I would prefer to stick with the existing "firmware_first" style.
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0#define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \ PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)@@ -337,10 +343,7 @@ bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void)
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void) · line 349
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-4int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) -return -EIO ; - -if (!dev->aer_cap) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;return pcie_capability_set_word (dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL ,PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS );
This change doesn't actually fix anything, does it? It looks like a cleanup that doesn't change the behavior.
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting); · line 356
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-1@@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);int pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;
This change does effectively add a test for dev->aer_cap. That makes sense in terms of symmetry with pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(), but I think it should be a separate patch because it's conceptually separate from the change below.
We should keep the existing behavior (but add the symmetry) here for now, but it's not clear to me that these paths should care about AER or firmware-first at all. PCI_EXP_DEVCTL is not an AER register and we have the _HPX mechanism for firmware to influence it (which these paths currently ignore). I suspect we should program these reporting enable bits in the core enumeration path instead of having drivers call these interfaces.
If/when we make changes along these lines, the history will be easier to follow if *this* change is not connected with the change below to pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs().
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 390
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-2return pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,@@ -383,10 +386,10 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ; - pos = dev->aer_cap; -if (!pos) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;
This part makes sense to me, but I think I would rather have it match the existing style in pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(), i.e., keep the test for dev->aer_cap and add a test for pcie_aer_get_firmware_first().
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-0+ pos = dev->aer_cap; port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
Quoted 7 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 4 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. Clearing error bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss some errors. In theory, these bits get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI
_HPXmethod. These mechanisms are not subject to the problem.What's FFS?
Firmware-first. Nobody likes spelling it out, and all other proposed acronyms are insanely tong-twisting. So, FFS.
Quoted 3 lines
I guess you mean FFS and
_HPXare not subject to the problem because they're supplied by firmware, so firmware would be responsible for looking at the bits before clearing them?
Exactly.
Quoted 47 lines
Quoted 20 lines
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, since I can't reasonably demonstrate this race in the lab.
On a side-note,
pcie_aer_is_kernel_first()is created to alleviate the need for two checks:aer_capandget_firmware_first().Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>---
Changes since v2:
- Added missing negation inpci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs()drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 314
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +5
-0@@ -307,6 +307,12 @@ int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev)aer_set_firmware_first (dev);return dev->__aer_firmware_first; } + +static bool pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (struct pci_dev *dev) +{ +return !!dev->aer_cap && !pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev); +}I think it complicates things to have both "
firmware_first" and "kernel_first" interfaces, so I would prefer to stick with the existing "firmware_first" style.Quoted 14 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-4#define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \ PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)@@ -337,10 +343,7 @@ bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void)int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) -return -EIO ; - -if (!dev->aer_cap) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c bool aer_acpi_firmware_first(void) · line 349
Quoted 1 line
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0return pcie_capability_set_word (dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL ,PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS );This change doesn't actually fix anything, does it? It looks like a cleanup that doesn't change the behavior.
Initially (v1), this was a one-liner, but someone had a complaint about having pcie_aer_get_firmware_first() boilerplate all over the place. That's why I added the "kernel_first" function (previous comment), and then updated this here for completeness. I'm also fine with v1.
Quoted 13 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting); · line 356
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-1@@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);int pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting (struct pci_dev *dev) { -if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;This change does effectively add a test for
dev->aer_cap. That makes sense in terms of symmetry withpci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(), but I think it should be a separate patch because it's conceptually separate from the change below.
Quoted 7 lines
We should keep the existing behavior (but add the symmetry) here for now, but it's not clear to me that these paths should care about AER or firmware-first at all.
PCI_EXP_DEVCTLis not an AER register and we have the_HPXmechanism for firmware to influence it (which these paths currently ignore). I suspect we should program these reporting enable bits in the core enumeration path instead of having drivers call these interfaces.
The headache is that FFS needs the reporting bit to stay enabled in order to get AER notifications. Disabling things here could really break firmware. Of course, that's a cyclical argument, since FW is broken by definition.
Quoted 3 lines
If/when we make changes along these lines, the history will be easier to follow if *this* change is not connected with the change below to
pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs().
I agree. I think it might be preferred then to go with v1, and leave the refactoring to a later time, since the extra changes are cosmetical and social.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0return pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,@@ -383,10 +386,10 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ;
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 390
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-2- pos = dev->aer_cap; -if (!pos) +if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first (dev))return -EIO ;This part makes sense to me, but I think I would rather have it match the existing style in
pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(), i.e., keep the test fordev->aer_capand add a test forpcie_aer_get_firmware_first().
Had it that way in v1.
Alex
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +1
-0+ pos = dev->aer_cap; port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
kbuild test robot
build botThank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
Hi Alexandru,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on pci/next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc6 next-20180724]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Alexandru-Gagniuc/PCI-AER-Do-not-clear-AER-bits-if-we-don-t-own-AER/20180724-235320 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git next config: x86_64-randconfig-x008-201829 (attached as .config) compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0 reproduce: # save the attached .config to linux build tree make ARCH=x86_64
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c: In function 'pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting':
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c:371:7: error: implicit declaration of function 'pcie_aer_is_kernel_first'; did you mean 'pcie_aer_get_firmware_first'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first(dev))
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pcie_aer_get_firmware_firstcc1: some warnings being treated as errors
vim +371 drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
365
366 #define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \
367 PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)
368
369 int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(struct pci_dev *dev)
370 {
> 371 if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first(dev))
372 return -EIO;
373
374 return pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS);
375 }
376 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);
377
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
kbuild test robot
build botThank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
Hi Alexandru,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on pci/next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc6 next-20180724]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Alexandru-Gagniuc/PCI-AER-Do-not-clear-AER-bits-if-we-don-t-own-AER/20180724-235320 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git next config: x86_64-randconfig-s1-07250001 (attached as .config) compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.4.0-9) 6.4.0 20171026 reproduce: # save the attached .config to linux build tree make ARCH=x86_64
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c: In function 'pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting':
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c:371:7: error: implicit declaration of function 'pcie_aer_is_kernel_first' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first(dev))
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
vim +/pcie_aer_is_kernel_first +371 drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
365
366 #define PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_CERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NFERE | \
367 PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_FERE | PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_URRE)
368
369 int pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(struct pci_dev *dev)
370 {
> 371 if (!pcie_aer_is_kernel_first(dev))
372 return -EIO;
373
374 return pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_AER_FLAGS);
375 }
376 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting);
377
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
Quoted 18 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. This happens unconditionally on device
probe(). Clearing AER bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss errors. Instead these bits should get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI_HPXmethod.This race is mostly of theoretical significance, as it is not easy to reasonably demonstrate it in testing.
Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>--- drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 387
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +2
-0@@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ;
I like this patch.
Do we need the same thing in the following places that also clear AER status bits or write AER control bits?
enable_ecrc_checking()
disable_ecrc_checking()
pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status()
pci_aer_clear_fatal_status()
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0pos = dev->aer_cap;if (!pos)return -EIO ;Signature · 1 line
2.14.3
On 08/09/2018 09:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:=0A=
Quoted 11 lines
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:31:23AM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:=0A=
Quoted 10 lines
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. This=0A= happens unconditionally on device
probe(). Clearing AER bits=0A= willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss errors. Instead=0A= these bits should get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI_HPXmethod.=0A= =0A=
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, as it is not easy to=0A= reasonably demonstrate it in testing.=0A=
=0A=Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>=0A=---=0A=
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c=0A= int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev=
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c| 3 +++=0A=1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)=0A==0A=
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c=0A= +0
-0@@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev=
*dev)=0A=
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c=0A= int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev= · line 387
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c=0A= +2
-0if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))=0A= return -ENODEV;=0A= =0A= + if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(dev))=0A= + return -EIO;=0A==0A=
I like this patch.=0A=
=0A=
Do we need the same thing in the following places that also clear AER=0A= status bits or write AER control bits?=0A=
=0A=
In theory, every exported function would guard for this. I think the =0A= idea a long long time ago was that the check happens during =0A= initialization, and the others are not hit.=0A=
=0A=
Quoted 2 lines
enable_ecrc_checking()=0A= disable_ecrc_checking()=0A=
=0A=
I don't immediately see how this would affect FFS, but the bits are part = =0A=
of the AER capability structure. According to the FFS model, those would = =0A=
be owned by FW, and we'd have to avoid touching them.=0A=
=0A=
Quoted 1 line
pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status()=0A=
=0A=
This probably should be guarded. It's only called from a few specific =0A= drivers, so the impact is not as high as being called from the core.=0A= =0A=
Quoted 1 line
pci_aer_clear_fatal_status()=0A=
=0A=
This is only called when doing fatal_recovery, right?=0A=
For practical considerations this is not an issue today. The ACPI error =0A= handling code currently crashes when it encounters any fatal error, so =0A= we wouldn't hit this in the FFS case.=0A=
=0A=
If the ACPI code pulls its thinking appendage out of the other end of =0A= the digestive tract, then we could be hitting this in the future. For =0A= correctness, guarding makes sense.=0A=
=0A=
The PCIe standards contact I usually talk to about these PCIe subtleties = =0A=
is currently on vacation. The number one issue was a FFS corner case =0A= with OS clearing bits on probe. The other functions you mention are a =0A= corner case of a corner case. The big fish is =0A= pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs() on probe(), and it would be nice to =0A= have that resolved.=0A=
=0A=
I'll sync up with Austin when he gets back to see about the other =0A= functions though I suspect we'll end up fixing them as well.=0A= =0A=
Alex=0A=
=0A=
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c=0A= +0
-1pos =3D dev->aer_cap;=0A= if (!pos)=0A= return -EIO;=0A= -- =0A=2.14.3=0A=
=0A==0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Quoted 35 lines · On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 04:46:32PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 22 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 21 lines · Alexandru Gagniuc
When we don't own AER, we shouldn't touch the AER error bits. This happens unconditionally on device
probe(). Clearing AER bits willy-nilly might cause firmware to miss errors. Instead these bits should get cleared by FFS, or via ACPI_HPXmethod.This race is mostly of theoretical significance, as it is not easy to reasonably demonstrate it in testing.
Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>--- drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +0
-0@@ -383,6 +383,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pci_is_pcie (dev))return -ENODEV ;Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev) · line 387
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +2
-0+if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ;I like this patch.
Do we need the same thing in the following places that also clear AER status bits or write AER control bits?
In theory, every exported function would guard for this. I think the idea a long long time ago was that the check happens during initialization, and the others are not hit.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
enable_ecrc_checking()
disable_ecrc_checking()I don't immediately see how this would affect FFS, but the bits are part of the AER capability structure. According to the FFS model, those would be owned by FW, and we'd have to avoid touching them.
Per ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.4, the HEST may contain entries for Root Ports that contain the FIRMWARE_FIRST flag as well as values the OS is supposed to write to several AER capability registers. It looks like we currently ignore everything except the FIRMWARE_FIRST and GLOBAL flags (ACPI_HEST_FIRMWARE_FIRST and ACPI_HEST_GLOBAL in Linux).
That seems like a pretty major screwup and more than I want to fix right now.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status()This probably should be guarded. It's only called from a few specific drivers, so the impact is not as high as being called from the core.
Quoted 1 line
pci_aer_clear_fatal_status()This is only called when doing
fatal_recovery, right?
True. It takes a lot of analysis to convince oneself that this is not used in the firmware-first path, so I think we should add a guard there.
Quoted 3 lines
For practical considerations this is not an issue today. The ACPI error handling code currently crashes when it encounters any fatal error, so we wouldn't hit this in the FFS case.
I wasn't aware the firmware-first path was *that* broken. Are there problem reports for this? Is this a regression?
Quoted 9 lines
The PCIe standards contact I usually talk to about these PCIe subtleties is currently on vacation. The number one issue was a FFS corner case with OS clearing bits on probe. The other functions you mention are a corner case of a corner case. The big fish is
pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs()onprobe(), and it would be nice to have that resolved.I'll sync up with Austin when he gets back to see about the other functions though I suspect we'll end up fixing them as well.
I'd like to fix all the obvious cases at once (excluding the ECRC stuff). What do you think about the following patch?
commit 15ed68dcc26864c849a12a36db4d4771bad7991f
Author: Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]> Date: Tue Jul 17 10:31:23 2018 -0500
PCI/AER: Don't clear AER bits if error handling is Firmware-First
If the platform requests Firmware-First error handling, firmware is responsible for reading and clearing AER status bits. If OSPM also clears them, we may miss errors. See ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.5 and 18.4.
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, as it is not easy to reasonably demonstrate it in testing.
[bhelgaas: add similar guards to pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status() and pci_aer_clear_fatal_status()]
drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +9 -0
@@ -397,6 +397,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pos)return -EIO ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ; +/* Clear status bits for ERR_NONFATAL errors only */ pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS , &status);pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_SEVER , &sev);
@@ -417,6 +420,9 @@ void pci_aer_clear_fatal_status(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pos)return ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return ; +/* Clear status bits for ERR_FATAL errors only */ pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS , &status);pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_SEVER , &sev);
@@ -438,6 +444,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pos)return -EIO ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ; + port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);
Quoted 2 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 04:46:32PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
On 08/09/2018 09:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
(snip_
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
enable_ecrc_checking()
disable_ecrc_checking()I don't immediately see how this would affect FFS, but the bits are part of the AER capability structure. According to the FFS model, those would be owned by FW, and we'd have to avoid touching them.
Quoted 8 lines
Per ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.4, the HEST may contain entries for Root Ports that contain the
FIRMWARE_FIRSTflag as well as values the OS is supposed to write to several AER capability registers. It looks like we currently ignore everything except theFIRMWARE_FIRSTand GLOBAL flags (ACPI_HEST_FIRMWARE_FIRSTandACPI_HEST_GLOBALin Linux).That seems like a pretty major screwup and more than I want to fix right now.
The logic is not very clear, but I think it goes like this:
For GLOBAL and FFS, disable native AER everywhere.
When !GLOBAL and FFS, then only disable native AER for the root port described by the HEST entry.
aer_acpi_firmware_first() doesn't care about context. Though check aer_set_firmware_first(), where we pass a pci_device as a context.
The FFS implementations I've seen have one HEST entry, with GLOBAL and FFS. I have yet to see more fine-grained control of root ports. I suspect that if we had this finer control from HEST, we'd honor it.
I do eventually want to get a test BIOS with different HEST entries, and make sure things work as intended. Though BIOS team is overloaded with other requests.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status()This probably should be guarded. It's only called from a few specific drivers, so the impact is not as high as being called from the core.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
pci_aer_clear_fatal_status()This is only called when doing
fatal_recovery, right?True. It takes a lot of analysis to convince oneself that this is not used in the firmware-first path, so I think we should add a guard there.
I agree. GHES has a header severity and a severity field for each section. All BIOSes I've seen do fatal/fatal, though a BIOS that would report correctable/fatal, would bypass the apei code and take us here.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
For practical considerations this is not an issue today. The ACPI error handling code currently crashes when it encounters any fatal error, so we wouldn't hit this in the FFS case.
I wasn't aware the firmware-first path was *that* broken. Are there problem reports for this? Is this a regression?
It's been like this since, I believe, 3.10, and probably much earlier. All reports that I have seen of linux crashing on surprise hot-plug have been caused by the panic() call in the apei code. Dell BIOSes do an extreme amount of work to determine when it's safe to _not_ report errors to the OS, since all known OSes crash on this path.
Fun fact: there's even dedicated hardware to accomplish the above.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
The PCIe standards contact I usually talk to about these PCIe subtleties is currently on vacation. The number one issue was a FFS corner case with OS clearing bits on probe. The other functions you mention are a corner case of a corner case. The big fish is
pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs()onprobe(), and it would be nice to have that resolved.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I'll sync up with Austin when he gets back to see about the other functions though I suspect we'll end up fixing them as well.
I'd like to fix all the obvious cases at once (excluding the ECRC stuff). What do you think about the following patch?
That looks very sensible to me. Thank you for updating it :).
I'm pulling in the changes right now to run some quick tests, and I don't expect any trouble.
Alex
Quoted 53 lines
commit
15ed68dcc26864c849a12a36db4d4771bad7991fAuthor: Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]> Date: Tue Jul 17 10:31:23 2018 -0500PCI/AER: Don't clear AER bits if error handling is Firmware-First
If the platform requests Firmware-First error handling, firmware is responsible for reading and clearing AER status bits. If OSPM also clears them, we may miss errors. See ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.5 and 18.4.
This race is mostly of theoretical significance, as it is not easy to reasonably demonstrate it in testing.
Signed-off-by Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]>[bhelgaas: add similar guards to
pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status()andpci_aer_clear_fatal_status()]Signed-off-by Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c +9
-0@@ -397,6 +397,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pos)return -EIO ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ; +/* Clear status bits for ERR_NONFATAL errors only */ pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS , &status);pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_SEVER , &sev);@@ -417,6 +420,9 @@ void pci_aer_clear_fatal_status(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pos)return ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return ; +/* Clear status bits for ERR_FATAL errors only */ pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_STATUS , &status);pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_UNCOR_SEVER , &sev);@@ -438,6 +444,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_error_status_regs(struct pci_dev *dev)if (!pos)return -EIO ; +if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first (dev)) +return -EIO ; + port_type =pci_pcie_type (dev);if (port_type ==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ) {pci_read_config_dword (dev, pos +PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS , &status);
Quoted 17 lines · Alex G.
Quoted 2 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 04:46:32PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
On 08/09/2018 09:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
(
snip_Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
enable_ecrc_checking()
disable_ecrc_checking()I don't immediately see how this would affect FFS, but the bits are part of the AER capability structure. According to the FFS model, those would be owned by FW, and we'd have to avoid touching them.
Per ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.4, the HEST may contain entries for Root Ports that contain the
FIRMWARE_FIRSTflag as well as values the OS is supposed to write to several AER capability registers. It looks like we currently ignore everything except theFIRMWARE_FIRSTand GLOBAL flags (ACPI_HEST_FIRMWARE_FIRSTandACPI_HEST_GLOBALin Linux).
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That seems like a pretty major screwup and more than I want to fix right now.
The logic is not very clear, but I think it goes like this:
For GLOBAL and FFS, disable native AER everywhere.
When !GLOBAL and FFS, then only disable native AER for the root port described by the HEST entry.
I agree the code is convoluted, but that sounds right to me.
What I meant is that we ignore the values the HEST entry tells us we're supposed to write to Device Control and the AER Uncorrectable Error Mask, Uncorrectable Error Severity, Correctable Error Mask, and AER Capabilities and Control.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
For practical considerations this is not an issue today. The ACPI error handling code currently crashes when it encounters any fatal error, so we wouldn't hit this in the FFS case.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I wasn't aware the firmware-first path was *that* broken. Are there problem reports for this? Is this a regression?
It's been like this since, I believe, 3.10, and probably much earlier. All reports that I have seen of linux crashing on surprise hot-plug have been caused by the
panic()call in the apei code. Dell BIOSes do an extreme amount of work to determine when it's safe to _not_ report errors to the OS, since all known OSes crash on this path.
Oh, is this the __ghes_panic() path? If so, I'm going to turn away and plead ignorance unless the PCI core is doing something wrong that eventually results in that panic.
Quoted 26 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 17 lines · Alex G.
Quoted 2 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 04:46:32PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
On 08/09/2018 09:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
(
snip_Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
enable_ecrc_checking()
disable_ecrc_checking()I don't immediately see how this would affect FFS, but the bits are part of the AER capability structure. According to the FFS model, those would be owned by FW, and we'd have to avoid touching them.
Per ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.4, the HEST may contain entries for Root Ports that contain the
FIRMWARE_FIRSTflag as well as values the OS is supposed to write to several AER capability registers. It looks like we currently ignore everything except theFIRMWARE_FIRSTand GLOBAL flags (ACPI_HEST_FIRMWARE_FIRSTandACPI_HEST_GLOBALin Linux).Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That seems like a pretty major screwup and more than I want to fix right now.
The logic is not very clear, but I think it goes like this:
For GLOBAL and FFS, disable native AER everywhere.
When !GLOBAL and FFS, then only disable native AER for the root port described by the HEST entry.
Quoted 6 lines
I agree the code is convoluted, but that sounds right to me.
What I meant is that we ignore the values the HEST entry tells us we're supposed to write to Device Control and the AER Uncorrectable Error Mask, Uncorrectable Error Severity, Correctable Error Mask, and AER Capabilities and Control.
Wait, what? _HPX has the same information. This is madness!
Since root ports are not hot-swappable, the BIOS normally programs those registers. Even if linux doesn't apply said masks, the programming BIOS did should be sufficient to have *cough* correct *cough* behavior.
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
For practical considerations this is not an issue today. The ACPI error handling code currently crashes when it encounters any fatal error, so we wouldn't hit this in the FFS case.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I wasn't aware the firmware-first path was *that* broken. Are there problem reports for this? Is this a regression?
It's been like this since, I believe, 3.10, and probably much earlier. All reports that I have seen of linux crashing on surprise hot-plug have been caused by the
panic()call in the apei code. Dell BIOSes do an extreme amount of work to determine when it's safe to _not_ report errors to the OS, since all known OSes crash on this path.
Quoted 3 lines
Oh, is this the
__ghes_panic()path? If so, I'm going to turn away and plead ignorance unless the PCI core is doing something wrong that eventually results in that panic.
I agree, and I'll quote you on that!
Alex