Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 08:55:13 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To:     Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
CC:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
        <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] cxl/pci: Only register RCDs with device 0,
 function 0 as CXL memory device
Message-ID: <6377b8f1be5e5_12cdff2941d@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
References: <20221109104059.766720-1-rrichter@amd.com>
 <20221109104059.766720-6-rrichter@amd.com>
 <63753900717c6_12cdff29439@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
 <Y3ZZqZ2kPS1yyOtd@rric.localdomain>
 <63766efb7ceac_12cdff294c3@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
 <Y3dB4quvaSzRzsT/@rric.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3dB4quvaSzRzsT/@rric.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?JGzHzETHG8qqfV1DDAF+6sJftypz1mT0YX3wzKvQLd/uaYwSDT++5cOZ6jOx?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BnYsyo9/7CdEJLvX0R7kJ6n+6zIo0zAksxmZ6QCHpYrd5kDSelrKhwS9GDcU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?gBY1Xpv2qd6pmSolo4sc6pGJ7+3jtD87kbkIJESEtCWW70/Ii8vhF2KebTYP?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?E+6WXS4AiLwsmHyiHVoLlF6hBS+0vMr331KSnWuPuOEWOpzNUvIadsowSTm2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?n1Gf7PofeN0X6CUqqB8u4CcZqiOZ/5YayJ/V1yBkqyfmAVGZEQBGdhK2tLD8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?83M0qtKrj9r6awCcpsMA8VI4oOr1zG2CUDhoYWle97JIQTR4Br1j1E/wtiNK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?53TWrHioNr/ZaPF/JiqKV3tUM+2c7N2hCbG8Sx/GamOGJsTvACDs9oaKU5Tl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?uLxAiYCdyC9o9gwgt44Ujld7QR+eg8/BDvuaTH4SszBO7tQqZiIBKnKVy7k7?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?x7Cb4NcxB2qmRBz7KA1QnKy+9uI3LSleeJtVj8V79w+S/+xTBKmxQBUKYK2U?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?JrHyvJMn12K4isiYOYm9c1mWJAi0mas+ZqMKcPpGGBHxqAKSLhHI7iOiRJ6p?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?qNuMPODfzPfoORnpSdLtkhQI4iaz1S0kVMD/TQ11KQy6KQTOPwhUaplHTVd6?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?lOtjGICtPLJMqLLpAdOSBThdi4++ck97t+0wgQcPTBD9OGyR/Z3IyMmJL8Rj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rtoH5Auu24+/tOXbWtkXlr7qWz54LNE0IlTE5tQP1I86sm6qymLDL4Hl6Zuy?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?lgSQd2ucWVhCGLdgIYlC6w14UzVeYyeoyrlbKiuUL00uo+qMCFR+QY9PDFT0?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?waGTBGowO3mQlP7MtwxR49Oj1qkfgVxxkyllqxcns8bZYfQhVgsae11zfxcx?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ZgrWIBCHNcQXYFxhKOLUR58J2G8BztoTN6qCRKPVMZwzhtEYMZvWsxMOvEhn?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/LuF1rOgOKuEQDd7MuLUR7vNubvwsn94eKIC1uSuKNbiKe7k/wm7N0VSeCFG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?xxk6u4D81dtnfwEz2NgMAoTYTTXpgnPSz3pDPmvmP59+HQPxfYGEfwUGAm0s?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GVIbBF5xbbZzUEXV6qQ2FaTdsnUTLXt+J2YcJINvbknomj9L/Lmx93AaHSuO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?69+6qq4tkoDilV7ortiEC0f1y0GcpH6PKavTPCt8+sBp4EqVEtaGCl30n24e?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?zCCUnlKjtlX3GsB5I0gi5oqNVXQTfW7H40lwzIucGEavbMZuvtqLaELBE8Hi?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RHp+A8rpwDihvDHrOzot4MK+oPsGdgERg4jycETHeyeYE/cootOZ19ygzVGZ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?viLWCJdn9xhiKB/X7T6VAmjr0zqbHPeTplS7NHlbxHt5UFgStzRrLi5CN8Ar?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?uIFcMPX4ALGdDtGJR00rhXx0oklR0+zSOFtWCSZcve5y3eUiQNPwzMY9nrZC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?JBrbR3Mwa6dxFcvnrq32WXFjngsebESblFsTvvB0mDGylJeyxc/0X9n2vx5W?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?efJ4M75x5D5PLGUlD24sFDKBKM/IgFMpjcGULk+Wd7kyL+3V7LVjSpxR+laz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?KPrY8kSQaDrxPJqoOgmqq6bq4htbmfPMcKdFZrb27t2iUsiJu75nmgmpw0UH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?PA=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dc3acf1e-34fd-4755-6646-08dac985ab1d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MWHPR1101MB2126.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2022 16:55:16.8760
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: /aweTTgG0YII3NRZHhokatVWqTbQyO7pECquWs1r7dNWtovJNjTifGsGf98SJ6xr7Iw5tLhF6F2Ry7YpEx5D+oiC4ErH5JVO3WpyMOIcj+A=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW4PR11MB6570
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
        SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Robert Richter wrote:
> On 17.11.22 09:27:23, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Robert Richter wrote:
> > > On 16.11.22 11:24:48, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > > The Device 0, Function 0 DVSEC controls the CXL functionality of the
> > > > > entire device. Add a check to prevent registration of any other PCI
> > > > > device on the bus as a CXL memory device.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you reference the specification wording that indicates that the OS
> > > > needs to actively avoid these situations, or otherwise point to the real
> > > > world scenario where this filtering is needed?
> > > 
> > > CXL 3.0
> > > 
> > > 8.1.3 PCIe DVSEC for CXL Device
> > > 
> > > """
> > > An RCD creates a new PCIe enumeration hierarchy. As such, it spawns a new Root Bus
> > > and can expose one or more PCIe device numbers and function numbers at this bus
> > > number. These are exposed as Root Complex Integrated Endpoints (RCiEP). The PCIe
> > > Configuration Space of Device 0, Function 0 shall include the CXL PCIe DVSEC as shown
> > > in Figure 8-1.
> > > """
> > > 
> > > """
> > > In either case, the capability, status, and control fields in Device 0, Function 0 DVSEC
> > > control the CXL functionality of the entire device.
> > > """
> > > 
> > > There are some other occurrences. I think this is even true for VH
> > > mode, as multiple CXL devices on the bus are exposed through multiple
> > > DSPs or Root Ports.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I limited this to an RCD only, esp. because its counterpart
> > > would be missing and thus port mapping would fail otherwise. See
> > > restricted_host_enumerate_dport() of this series.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/cxl/pci.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > > > > index faeb5d9d7a7a..cc4f206f24b3 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > > > > @@ -428,11 +428,26 @@ static void devm_cxl_pci_create_doe(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +static int check_restricted_device(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 pcie_dvsec)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	if (pci_pcie_type(pdev) != PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END)
> > > > > +		return 0;		/* no RCD */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (pdev->devfn == PCI_DEVFN(0, 0) && pcie_dvsec)
> > > > > +		return 0;		/* ok */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Skipping RCD: devfn=0x%02x dvsec=%u\n",
> > > > 
> > > > s/0x%02x/%#02x/
> > > > 
> > > > > +		pdev->devfn, pcie_dvsec);
> > > 
> > > Ok.
> > > 
> > > > This looks like a dev_dbg() to me. Otherwise a warning will always fire
> > > > on a benign condition.
> > > 
> > > I have chosen dev_warn() here as this is a non-compliant unexpected
> > > behavior of the device. There are no (legal) cases this may happen. I
> > > suppose you are worried about spamming the console here, but that
> > > error should be reported somewhere and thus being visible.
> > 
> > There are so many spec illegal values and conditions that the driver
> > could checki, but does not. The reason I am poking here is why does the
> > driver need to be explicit about *this* illegal condition versus all the
> > other potential conditions? What is the practical end user impact if
> > Linux does not include this change? For example, if it is just one
> > vendor that made this mistake that can be an explicit quirk.
> > 
> > A dev_warn() is not necessary for simple quirks.
> 
> This is not simply a cross check, the driver prevents enablement of
> CXL mem devs other than PCI_DEVFN(0, 0). It shouldn't silently drop
> out then. It's a device malfunction which should appropriate reported
> and not only visible if dbg is enabled.
> 
> As written above, the check is necessary as the counterpart is missing

It is only necessary if this condition happens in practice, not a
theoretically. So I am asking, are you seeing this with an actual device
that someone will use in production? If so, that's what pci quirks are
for to keep those workarounds organized in a common location.