On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 08:10:19PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote: > On 2023/9/21 07:02, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 05:39:58PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote: > ... > > I guess your point is that for CPER_SEV_FATAL errors, the APEI/GHES > > path always panics but the native path never does, and that maybe both > > paths should work the same way? > > Yes, exactly. Both OS native and APEI/GHES firmware first are notifications > used to handles PCIe AER errors, and IMHO, they should ideally work in the > same way. I agree, that would be nice, but the whole point of the APEI/GHES functionality is vendor value-add, so I'm not sure we can achieve that ideal. > ... > As a result, AER driver only does recovery for non-fatal PCIe error. This is only true for the APEI/GHES path, right? For *native* AER handling, we attempt recovery for both fatal and non-fatal errors. > > It doesn't seem like the native path should always panic. If we can > > tell that data was corrupted, we may want to panic, but otherwise I > > don't think we should crash the entire system even if some device is > > permanently broken. > > Got it. But how can we tell if the data is corrupted with OS native? I naively expect that by PCIe protocol, corrupted DLLPs or TLPs detected by CRC, sequence number errors, etc, would be discarded before corrupting memory, so I doubt we'd get an uncorrectable error that means "sorry, I just corrupted your data." But DPC is advertised as "avoiding the potential spread of any data corruption," so there must be some mechanisms of corruption, and since DPC is triggered by either ERR_FATAL or ERR_NONFATAL, I guess maybe the errors could tell us something. I'm going to quit speculating because I obviously don't know enough about this area. > >> However, I have changed my mind on this issue as I encounter a case where > >> a error propagation is detected due to fatal DLLP (Data Link Protocol > >> Error) error. A DLLP error occurred in the Compute node, causing the > >> node to panic because `struct acpi_hest_generic_status::error_severity` was > >> set as CPER_SEV_FATAL. However, data corruption was still detected in the > >> storage node by CRC. > > > > The only mention of Data Link Protocol Error that looks relevant is > > PCIe r6.0, sec 3.6.2.2, which basically says a DLLP with an unexpected > > Sequence Number should be discarded: > > > > For Ack and Nak DLLPs, the following steps are followed (see Figure > > 3-21): > > > > - If the Sequence Number specified by the AckNak_Seq_Num does not > > correspond to an unacknowledged TLP, or to the value in > > ACKD_SEQ, the DLLP is discarded > > > > - This is a Data Link Protocol Error, which is a reported error > > associated with the Port (see Section 6.2). > > > > So data from that DLLP should not have made it to memory, although of > > course the DMA may not have been completed. But it sounds like you > > did see corrupted data written to memory? > > The storage node use RDMA to directly access remote compute node. > And a error detected by CRC in the storage node. So I suspect yes. When doing the CRC, can you distinguish between corrupted data and data that was not written because a DMA was only partially completed? > ... > I tried to inject Data Link Protocol Error on some platform. The mechanism > behind is that rootport controls the sequence number of the specific TLPs > and ACK/NAK DLLPs. Data Link Protocol Error will be detected at the Rx side > of ACK/NAK DLLPs. > > In such case, NIC and NVMe recovered on fatal and non-fatal DLLP > errors. I'm guessing this error injection directly writes the AER status bit, which would probably only test the reporting (sending an ERR_FATAL message), AER interrupt generation, firmware or OS interrupt handling, etc. It probably would not actually generate a DLLP with a bad sequence number, so it probably does not test the hardware behavior of discarding the DLLP if the sequence number is bad. Just my guess though. > ... > My point is that how kernel could recover from non-fatal and fatal > errors in firmware first without DPC? If CPER_SEV_FATAL is used to > report fatal PCIe error, kernel will panic in APEI/GHES driver. The platform decides whether to use CPER_SEV_FATAL, so we can't change that. We *could* change whether Linux panics when the platform says an error is CPER_SEV_FATAL. That happens in drivers/acpi, so it's really up to Rafael. Personally I would want to hear from vendors who use the APEI/GHES path. Poking around the web for logs that mention HEST and related things, it looks like at least Dell, HP, and Lenovo use it. And there are drivers/acpi/apei commits from nxp.com, alibaba.com, amd.com, arm.com huawei.com, etc., so some of them probably care, too. Bjorn
