Am 09.09.2020 um 20:28 schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> When trying to enable a state that is not covered by the policy,
>> then the change request will be silently ignored. That's not too
>> nice to the user, therefore reject such attempts explicitly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 7 ++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>> index b17e5ffd3..cd0f30ca9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>> @@ -1224,11 +1224,16 @@ static ssize_t aspm_attr_store_common(struct device *dev,
>> {
>> struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>> struct pcie_link_state *link = pcie_aspm_get_link(pdev);
>> + u32 policy_state = policy_to_aspm_state(link);
>> bool state_enable;
>>
>> if (strtobool(buf, &state_enable) < 0)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + /* reject attempts to enable states not covered by policy */
>> + if (state_enable && state & ~policy_state)
>> + return -EPERM;
>
> I really like the sentiment of this patch, but I don't like the fact
> that this test for states being covered by the policy is here by
> itself.
>
> There must be some place in the pcie_config_aspm_link() path that does
> a similar test and silently ignores things not covered by the policy?
> If we could take advantage of *that* test, we won't have to worry
> about things getting out of sync if we change that test in the future.
>
> Maybe pcie_config_aspm_link() could return -EPERM if the policy
> doesn't allow the requested state, and we could just notice that here?
>
Oh, I just see that I missed to follow-up on this topic.
Currently pcie_config_aspm_link() is called in two versions:
1. with state argument 0
2. with state argument policy_to_aspm_state(link)
Therefore pcie_config_aspm_link() doesn't check for states not covered
by the policy. We could add a policy check, but the only use case where
this check would be needed is the call from aspm_attr_store_common().
Is this worth it? Ot better go with the check in
aspm_attr_store_common() as proposed?
In addition, based on the two types of calls to pcie_config_aspm_link(),
we could simplify usage of this function and replace the state argument
with a bool enable flag. If set, then pcie_config_aspm_link() would
internally select policy_to_aspm_state() as requested state.
>> down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>> mutex_lock(&aspm_lock);
>>
>> @@ -1241,7 +1246,7 @@ static ssize_t aspm_attr_store_common(struct device *dev,
>> link->aspm_disable |= state;
>> }
>>
>> - pcie_config_aspm_link(link, policy_to_aspm_state(link));
>> + pcie_config_aspm_link(link, policy_state);
>>
>> mutex_unlock(&aspm_lock);
>> up_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>> --
>> 2.27.0
>>
