On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Betty Dall <betty.dall@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:35 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Betty Dall <betty.dall@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > There are three functions exported from aerdrv_core.c that could be
>>> > called when the system is in firmware first mode:
>>> > pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting(), pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting, and
>>> > pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status(). The first two functions check if
>>> > we are in firmware first mode and return immediately.
>>> > pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status() does not check firmware first
>>> > mode. The problem is that all of these functions should not access the AER
>>> > registers in firmware first mode because the firmware has not granted OS
>>> > control of the AER registers through the _OSC.
>>>
>>> This looks like a good fix to me. If I read aer_acpi_firmware_first()
>>> correctly, we don't even *ask* for control of AER if
>>> ACPI_HEST_FIRMWARE_FIRST appears anywhere in the HEST. Does that
>>> match your understanding?
>>
>> Yes, when the system is in firmware first mode the code setting the _OSC
>> control register does not ask for AER control.
>>
>>>
>>> > Many drivers call this
>>> > function in their pci_error_handlers in firmware first mode.
>>>
>>> Drivers don't have any idea whether their device is in firmware-first
>>> mode, do they?
>>
>> Right. And I think we want to keep it that way. Having this function is
>> a good thing so that the firmware first can be abstracted from the
>> drivers.
>>
>>>
>>> > The fix is to change pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status() to check
>>> > firmware first mode before accessing the AER registers. If it is in firmware
>>> > first mode, return 0. I considered returning -EIO, but decided the status
>>> > has been cleaned up appropriately for firmware first. Returning 0 also avoids
>>> > an error message. Not many places check the return of this function, and the
>>> > ones that do, print an error message and continue such as:
>>> > err = pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status(pdev);
>>> > if (err) {
>>> > dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>>> > "pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status failed 0x%0x\n",
>>> > err); /* non-fatal, continue */
>>> > }
>>> > That error message is how I found this problem, and it is not applicable
>>> > for the firmware first recovery path.
>>>
>>> I'm curious -- did you find this problem because you saw a message
>>> when pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status() returned failure? The
>>> only way it can return failure is if there is no AER capability, and
>>> that should be completely independent of whether we're in
>>> firmware-first mode.
>>
>> Yes, I saw the error message during error injection testing and using a
>> firmware that denies access to AER control because it is firmware first.
>> You are right that it would only print out when there is no AER
>> capability. I was reading code looking for places that might access the
>> AER registers in firmware first mode. This is the only one I found.
>
> I see why you added a pcie_aer_get_firmware_first() test, because
> that's what pci_enable_pcie_error_reporting() and
> pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting() do.
>
> But I think we implemented the firmware-first stuff wrong by elevating
> the firmware-first concept to the arch-independent level. The
> connection between this and the _OSC negotiation is pretty convoluted,
> even on x86. It's hard to verify by reading the code that we avoid
> touching AER if we haven't asked for control or the BIOS declined to
> grant it.
>
> I think it would be better if the pci_dev.__aer_firmware_first stuff
> were replaced by a more generic "can we use AER?" flag. That flag
> should be set at device enumeration time, so we wouldn't need anything
> like the __aer_firmware_first_valid flag.
I guess I'm assuming that firmware-first means "the OS should not use
AER at all for this device; any errors will be reported via HEST." Is
that true?
The term "firmware-first" definitely suggests that the firmware gets
to process an error before the OS does anything. It *could* also
suggest that after the firmware gets first chance, the OS can do its
normal error handling with AER. But I hope that's not the case
because I think it would be hard to coordinate.
Bjorn
>>> > Signed-off-by: Betty Dall <betty.dall@xxxxxx>
>>> > ---
>>> >
>>> > drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c | 3 +++
>>> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c
>>> > index b2c8881..1f60408 100644
>>> > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c
>>> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c
>>> > @@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ int pci_cleanup_aer_uncorrect_error_status(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> > int pos;
>>> > u32 status;
>>> >
>>> > + if (pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(dev))
>>> > + return 0;
>>> > +
>>> > pos = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ERR);
>>> > if (!pos)
>>> > return -EIO;
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
