On 12/4/20 6:47 AM, Brian King wrote:
> On 12/2/20 8:07 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> @@ -4983,6 +4993,118 @@ static int ibmvfc_init_crq(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
>> return retrc;
>> }
>>
>> +static int ibmvfc_register_scsi_channel(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost,
>> + int index)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = vhost->dev;
>> + struct vio_dev *vdev = to_vio_dev(dev);
>> + struct ibmvfc_sub_queue *scrq = &vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs[index];
>> + int rc = -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + ENTER;
>> +
>> + scrq->msgs = (struct ibmvfc_sub_crq *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!scrq->msgs)
>> + return rc;
>> +
>> + scrq->size = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(*scrq->msgs);
>> + scrq->msg_token = dma_map_single(dev, scrq->msgs, PAGE_SIZE,
>> + DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
>> +
>> + if (dma_mapping_error(dev, scrq->msg_token))
>> + goto dma_map_failed;
>> +
>> + rc = h_reg_sub_crq(vdev->unit_address, scrq->msg_token, PAGE_SIZE,
>> + &scrq->cookie, &scrq->hw_irq);
>> +
>> + if (rc) {
>> + dev_warn(dev, "Error registering sub-crq: %d\n", rc);
>> + if (rc == H_PARAMETER)
>> + dev_warn_once(dev, "Firmware may not support MQ\n");
>> + goto reg_failed;
>> + }
>> +
>> + scrq->hwq_id = index;
>> + scrq->vhost = vhost;
>> +
>> + LEAVE;
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +reg_failed:
>> + dma_unmap_single(dev, scrq->msg_token, PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
>> +dma_map_failed:
>> + free_page((unsigned long)scrq->msgs);
>> + LEAVE;
>> + return rc;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ibmvfc_deregister_scsi_channel(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost, int index)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = vhost->dev;
>> + struct vio_dev *vdev = to_vio_dev(dev);
>> + struct ibmvfc_sub_queue *scrq = &vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs[index];
>> + long rc;
>> +
>> + ENTER;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + rc = plpar_hcall_norets(H_FREE_SUB_CRQ, vdev->unit_address,
>> + scrq->cookie);
>> + } while (rc == H_BUSY || H_IS_LONG_BUSY(rc));
>> +
>> + if (rc)
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to free sub-crq[%d]: rc=%ld\n", index, rc);
>> +
>> + dma_unmap_single(dev, scrq->msg_token, PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
>> + free_page((unsigned long)scrq->msgs);
>> + LEAVE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int ibmvfc_init_sub_crqs(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
>> +{
>> + int i, j;
>> +
>> + ENTER;
>> +
>> + vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs = kcalloc(IBMVFC_SCSI_HW_QUEUES,
>> + sizeof(*vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < IBMVFC_SCSI_HW_QUEUES; i++) {
>> + if (ibmvfc_register_scsi_channel(vhost, i)) {
>> + for (j = i; j > 0; j--)
>> + ibmvfc_deregister_scsi_channel(vhost, j - 1);
>> + kfree(vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs);
>> + vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs = NULL;
>> + vhost->scsi_scrqs.active_queues = 0;
>> + LEAVE;
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + LEAVE;
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ibmvfc_release_sub_crqs(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + ENTER;
>> + if (!vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < IBMVFC_SCSI_HW_QUEUES; i++)
>> + ibmvfc_deregister_scsi_channel(vhost, i);
>> +
>> + kfree(vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs);
>> + vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs = NULL;
>> + vhost->scsi_scrqs.active_queues = 0;
>> + LEAVE;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * ibmvfc_free_mem - Free memory for vhost
>> * @vhost: ibmvfc host struct
>> @@ -5239,6 +5361,12 @@ static int ibmvfc_probe(struct vio_dev *vdev, const struct vio_device_id *id)
>> goto remove_shost;
>> }
>>
>> + if (vhost->mq_enabled) {
>> + rc = ibmvfc_init_sub_crqs(vhost);
>> + if (rc)
>> + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to allocate Sub-CRQs. rc=%d\n", rc);
>
> So, I think if you end up down this path, you will have:
>
> vhost->scsi_scrqs.scrqs == NULL
> vhost->scsi_scrqs.active_queues == 0
>
> And you proceed with discovery. You will proceed with enquiry and channel setup.
> Then, I think you could end up in queuecommand doing this
>
> evt->hwq = hwq % vhost->scsi_scrqs.active_queues;
>
> And that is a divide by zero...
Actually, we would bite the dust earlier than that but it requires the sub-crq
allocation to fail for a reason other than lack of firmware support. In the no
firmware support case the VIOS doesn't report channel support and we skip the
enquiry and setup steps. However, in the case where there is support and
allocation fails we would dereference a NULL pointer trying to write the channel
sub-crq handles into the channel_setup MAD.
>
> I wonder if it would be better in this scenario where registering the sub crqs fails,
> if you just did:
>
> vhost->do_enquiry = 0;
> vhost->mq_enabled = 0;
> vhost->using_channels = 0;
>
> It looks like you only try to allocate the subcrqs in probe, so if that fails, we'd
> never end up using mq, so just disabling in this case seems reasonable.
This breaks migration from legacy to a target with channel support. It appears
that migration for that case is already broken anyways. Need to rethink sub-crq
setup. Maybe best to actually do it during the negoation steps instead of in probe.
-Tyrel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
