All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@hotmail.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de,
	rdunlap@infradead.org, alex@shazbot.org, kevin.tian@intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: Add the enhanced ACS controls check to pci_acs_flags_enabled()
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 10:51:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260123145113.GA1134360@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SI2PR01MB4393ADC9C367C4A6F8032A02DC94A@SI2PR01MB4393.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 09:49:43AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> The enhanced ACS controls introduced by PCIe Gen 5 ensures better device
> isolation. On devices that support the PCI_ACS_ECAP capability, the
> controls are required to be enabled properly:
> - ACS I/O Request Blocking needs to be enabled to avoid unintended
>   upstream I/O requests.
> - ACS DSP and USP Memory Target Access Control needs to be set with
>   Request Redirect or Request Blocking to ensure the Downstream and
>   and Upstream Port memory resource ranges are not accessed by upstream
>   memory requests.
> - ACS Unclaimed Request Redirect needs to be enabled to ensure accesses to
>   areas that lies within a Switch's Upstream Port memory apertures but not
>   within any Downstream Port memory apertures get redirected.
> 
> To maintain compatibility with legacy devices that lack PCI_ACS_ECAP
> support, pci_acs_enabled() skips checking for the capability and logs a
> warning to indicate that isolation may be incomplete.

That's every existing system, please don't do that.

The issue with ECAP is the way PCI SIG re-defined what Linux has been
doing forever as unsafe.

Jason

> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@hotmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pci.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> index c4cf835ec8ba..ff974ced90aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> @@ -3527,6 +3527,56 @@ void pci_configure_ari(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static bool pci_dev_has_memory_bars(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i <= PCI_ROM_RESOURCE; i++) {
> +		if (pci_resource_flags(pdev, i) & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool pci_acs_ecap_enabled(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 ctrl)
> +{
> +	struct pci_dev *usp_pdev = pci_upstream_bridge(pdev);
> +	u16 mask = PCI_ACS_DMAC_RB | PCI_ACS_DMAC_RR;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * For ACS DSP/USP Memory Target Access Control, either Request
> +	 * Redirect or Request Blocking must be enabled to enforce isolation.
> +	 * According to PCIe spec 6.2, the DSP Memory Target Access is
> +	 * applicable to both Root Ports and Switch Upstream Ports that have
> +	 * applicable Memory BAR space to protect. So if the device does not
> +	 * have a Memory BAR, it skips the check.
> +	 */

This doesn't make sense, the special cases PCI sig clarified only have
to do with switches that have MMIO on their USP/DSP and a case where
the DSP aperture isn't covered by all the USPs.

These tests shouldn't be done outside a usp/dsp context.

You can look at what I drafted earlier here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/0-v3-8827cc7fc4e0+23f-pcie_switch_groups_jgg@nvidia.com/

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-23 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-23  1:49 [PATCH v2 0/2] PCI: Add support for ACS Enhanced Capability Wei Wang
2026-01-23  1:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: Enable the enhanced ACS controls introduced by PCI_ACS_ECAP Wei Wang
2026-01-23  1:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: Add the enhanced ACS controls check to pci_acs_flags_enabled() Wei Wang
2026-01-23 14:51   ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2026-01-26  9:10     ` Wei Wang
2026-01-26 18:01       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-01-27  5:07         ` Wei Wang

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=20260123145113.GA1134360@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex@shazbot.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=wei.w.wang@hotmail.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.