Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:59:26 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To:     Sinan Kaya <Okaya@kernel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, austin_bolen@dell.com,
        alex_gagniuc@dellteam.com, keith.busch@intel.com,
        Shyam_Iyer@Dell.com, lukas@wunner.de,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add link_change error handler and vfio-pci user
Message-ID: <20190429105926.209d17d3@x1.home>
In-Reply-To: <76169da9-36cd-6754-41e7-47c8ef668648@kernel.org>
References: <155605909349.3575.13433421148215616375.stgit@gimli.home>
        <20190424175758.GC244134@google.com>
        <20190429085104.728aee75@x1.home>
        <76169da9-36cd-6754-41e7-47c8ef668648@kernel.org>
Organization: Red Hat
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:45:28 -0700
Sinan Kaya <Okaya@kernel.org> wrote:

> On 4/29/2019 10:51 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > So where do we go from here?  I agree that dmesg is not necessarily a
> > great choice for these sorts of events and if they went somewhere else,
> > maybe I wouldn't have the same concerns about them generating user
> > confusion or contributing to DoS vectors from userspace drivers.  As it
> > is though, we have known cases where benign events generate confusing
> > logging messages, which seems like a regression.  Drivers didn't ask
> > for a link_change handler, but nor did they ask that the link state to
> > their device be monitored so closely.  Maybe this not only needs some
> > sort of change to the logging mechanism, but also an opt-in by the
> > driver if they don't expect runtime link changes.  Thanks,  
> 
> Is there anyway to detect autonomous hardware management support and
> not report link state changes in that situation?
> 
> I thought there were some capability bits for these.

Not that we can find, this doesn't trigger the separate autonomous
bandwidth notification interrupt.  Thanks,

Alex