On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 00:29, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:41:03AM +0100, Marcos Scriven wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 20:26, Marcos Scriven <marcos@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 17:17, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > [+cc Alex] > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Marcos Scriven wrote: > > > > > This patch fixes an FLR bug on the following two devices: > > > > > > > > > > AMD Matisse HD Audio Controller 0x1487 > > > > > AMD Matisse USB 3.0 Host Controller 0x149c > > > > > > > > > > As there was already such a quirk for an Intel network device, I have > > > > > renamed that method and updated the comments, trying to make it > > > > > clearer what the specific original devices that were affected are > > > > > (based on the commit message this was original done: > > > > > https://git.thm.de/mhnn55/eco32-linux-ba/commit/f65fd1aa4f9881d5540192d11f7b8ed2fec936db). > > > > > > > > > > I have ordered them by hex product ID. > > > > > > > > > > I have verified this works on a X570 I AORUS PRO WIFI (rev. 1.0) motherboard. > > > > > > > > If we avoid FLR, is there another method used to reset these devices > > > > between attachments to different VMs? Does the lack of FLR mean we > > > > can leak information between VMs? > > > > > > > > Would additional delay after the FLR work around this, e.g., something > > > > like 51ba09452d11 ("PCI: Delay after FLR of Intel DC P3700 NVMe")? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking at this patch Bjorn. > > > > > > To take your three points: > > > > > > 1. Certainly I can see those devices able to be passed back and forth > > > between host and guest multiple times, once this patch is applied. > > > > > > 2. I don't know the answer to that question; would appreciate guidance > > > on how to determine this. Do you mean perhaps some buffered data in > > > the USB controller, for instance? > > > > > > 3. I have not tried an additional delay. This is the logs I see when > > > the error is occurring: > > > > > > [ 2423.556570] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 1023ms after FLR; waiting > > > [ 2425.604526] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 2047ms after FLR; waiting > > > [ 2428.804509] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 4095ms after FLR; waiting > > > [ 2433.924409] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 8191ms after FLR; waiting > > > [ 2443.140721] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 16383ms after FLR; waiting > > > [ 2461.571944] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 32767ms after FLR; waiting > > > [ 2496.387544] vfio-pci 0000:0c:00.3: not ready 65535ms after FLR; giving up > > > > > > What makes this bug especially bad is the host never recovers, and > > > eventually hangs or crashes. > > > > > > For reference, the delay example you're talking about is: > > > > > > static int delay_250ms_after_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) > > > { > > > if (!pcie_has_flr(dev)) > > > return -ENOTTY; > > > > > > if (probe) > > > return 0; > > > > > > pcie_flr(dev); > > > > > > msleep(250); > > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > I don't know if it would work, but I will try it out and report back. > > > > > > Marcos > > > > > > > > > > Bjorn/Alex > > > > I have just tried the alternate approach of adding a 250ms delay to > > the function level reset - this unfortunately results in the same > > broken behaviour, with the host itself never recovering. > > > > [ 76.905410] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 1023ms after FLR; waiting > > [ 79.018014] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 2047ms after FLR; waiting > > [ 82.089390] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 4095ms after FLR; waiting > > [ 87.209416] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 8191ms after FLR; waiting > > [ 96.425440] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 16383ms after FLR; waiting > > [ 114.615491] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 32767ms after FLR; waiting > > [ 149.417712] vfio-pci 0000:0d:00.3: not ready 65535ms after FLR; giving up > > > > I also tried a full second, to no avail. > > > > What would be the next step in proceeding with the original patch please? > > Implementation of FLR is "strongly recommended" by the spec but is > optional. So I don't see a problem with just avoiding it via your > patch. > > I applied it to pci/virtualization for v5.8, thanks! > > Bjorn Hi Bjorn Wonderful news! Thanks again for your help. Marcos
