From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc: refactormyself@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: pciehp: Fix wrong failure check on pcie_capability_read_*()
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:14:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200626191421.GA2924609@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200620090936.3khh3gj46pnojnrw@wunner.de>
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:09:36AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:12:19PM +0200, refactormyself@gmail.com wrote:
> > On failure, pcie_capabiility_read_*() will set the status value,
> > its last parameter to 0 and not ~0.
> > This bug fix checks for the proper value.
>
> If a config space read times out, the PCIe controller fabricates
> an "all ones" response. The code is checking for such a timeout,
> not for an error. Hence the code is fine.
In the typical case, the pci_read_config_word() done by
pcie_capability_read_word() will not return an error, so if the read
times out, we should see slot_status == ~0.
But if it's possible to set dev->error_state ==
pci_channel_io_perm_failure, pci_read_config_word() will return an
error because pci_dev_is_disconnected(), so slot_status would be 0.
There are a dozen or so places that set dev->error_state. It doesn't
look *likely* that any of them would cause this, but it doesn't
instill confidence.
It would be a lot nicer if we didn't have to worry about both the 0
and ~0 cases. I keep coming back to the idea of removing the "*val
= 0" code from pcie_capability_read_word() so we wouldn't have that
special case.
In any case, this particular patch doesn't seem like quite the right
fix, so I'll drop it.
> > Signed-off-by: Bolarinwa Olayemi Saheed <refactormyself@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> > index 53433b37e181..c1a67054948a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> > @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static int pcie_poll_cmd(struct controller *ctrl, int timeout)
> >
> > do {
> > pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_SLTSTA, &slot_status);
> > - if (slot_status == (u16) ~0) {
> > + if (slot_status == (u16)0) {
> > ctrl_info(ctrl, "%s: no response from device\n",
> > __func__);
> > return 0;
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static void pcie_do_write_cmd(struct controller *ctrl, u16 cmd,
> > pcie_wait_cmd(ctrl);
> >
> > pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_SLTCTL, &slot_ctrl);
> > - if (slot_ctrl == (u16) ~0) {
> > + if (slot_ctrl == (u16)0) {
> > ctrl_info(ctrl, "%s: no response from device\n", __func__);
> > goto out;
> > }
> > @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ int pciehp_check_link_active(struct controller *ctrl)
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKSTA, &lnk_status);
> > - if (ret == PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND || lnk_status == (u16)~0)
> > + if (ret == PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND || lnk_status == (u16)0)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > ret = !!(lnk_status & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_DLLLA);
> > @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ int pciehp_card_present(struct controller *ctrl)
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_SLTSTA, &slot_status);
> > - if (ret == PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND || slot_status == (u16)~0)
> > + if (ret == PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND || slot_status == (u16)0)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > return !!(slot_status & PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_PDS);
> > @@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ static irqreturn_t pciehp_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >
> > read_status:
> > pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_SLTSTA, &status);
> > - if (status == (u16) ~0) {
> > + if (status == (u16)0) {
> > ctrl_info(ctrl, "%s: no response from device\n", __func__);
> > if (parent)
> > pm_runtime_put(parent);
> > --
> > 2.18.2
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-26 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-19 20:12 [PATCH 0/2] Fix wrong failure check on pcie_capability_read_*() refactormyself
2020-06-19 20:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] PCI/PME: " refactormyself
2020-06-19 20:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] PCI: pciehp: " refactormyself
2020-06-20 9:09 ` Lukas Wunner
2020-06-26 19:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200626191421.GA2924609@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=refactormyself@gmail.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).