All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
	"Oleksii Kurochko" <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.20 2/3] x86/PCI: init segments earlier
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2025 14:46:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a4cc2c27-ed02-4453-9730-09d532b3edad@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <940ccd1b-9ad8-4b68-a035-36f45326872b@suse.com>

On 30/01/2025 11:12 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> In order for amd_iommu_detect_one_acpi()'s call to pci_ro_device() to
> have permanent effect, pci_segments_init() needs to be called ahead of
> making it there. Without this we're losing segment 0's r/o map, and thus
> we're losing write-protection of the PCI devices representing IOMMUs.
> Which in turn means that half-way recent Linux Dom0 will, as it boots,
> turn off MSI on these devices, thus preventing any IOMMU events (faults
> in particular) from being reported on pre-x2APIC hardware.
>
> As the acpi_iommu_init() invocation was moved ahead of
> acpi_mmcfg_init()'s by the offending commit, move the call to
> pci_segments_init() accordingly.
>
> Fixes: 3950f2485bbc ("x86/x2APIC: defer probe until after IOMMU ACPI table parsing")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> Of course it would have been quite a bit easier to notice this issue if
> radix_tree_insert() wouldn't work fine ahead of radix_tree_init() being
> invoked for a given radix tree, when the index inserted at is 0.
>
> While hunting down various other dead paths to actually find the root
> cause, it occurred to me that it's probably not a good idea to fully
> disallow config space writes for r/o devices: Dom0 won't be able to size
> their BARs (luckily the IOMMU "devices" don't have any, but e.g. serial
> ones generally will have at least one), for example. Without being able
> to size BARs it also will likely be unable to correctly account for the
> address space taken by these BARs. However, outside of vPCI it's not
> really clear to me how we could reasonably emulate such BAR sizing
> writes - we can't, after all, allow Dom0 to actually write to the
> underlying physical registers, yet we don't intercept reads (i.e. we
> can't mimic expected behavior then).
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig-shared.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig-shared.c
> @@ -402,8 +402,6 @@ void __init acpi_mmcfg_init(void)
>  {
>      bool valid = true;
>  
> -    pci_segments_init();
> -
>      /* MMCONFIG disabled */
>      if ((pci_probe & PCI_PROBE_MMCONF) == 0)
>          return;
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c
> @@ -55,6 +55,8 @@ void __init acpi_iommu_init(void)
>  {
>      int ret = -ENODEV;
>  
> +    pci_segments_init();
> +
>      if ( !iommu_enable && !iommu_intremap )
>          return;
>  
>

I can't help but feel this is taking a bad problem and not making it any
better.

pci_segments_init() is even less (obviously) relevant in
apci_iommu_init() than it is in acpi_mmcfg_init(), and given the
fine-grain Kconfig-ing going on, is only one small step from
accidentally being compiled out.

ARM is in a bad state too, with this initialisation even being behind
the PCI Passthrough cmdline option.

IMO there are two problems here; one as you pointed out
(radix_tree_insert() doesn't fail), and that PCI handling requires
explicit initialisation to begin with.

Looking through radix tree, it wouldn't be hard to create a
RADIX_TREE_INIT macro to allow initialisation at compile time for
suitable objects (pci_segments and acpi_ivrs currently).

That involves exporting rcu_node_{alloc,free}(), although the last
caller of radix_tree_set_alloc_callbacks() was dropped when TMEM went,
so we could reasonably remove that infrastructure too, at which point
radix_tree_init() is a simple zero of the structure.

Dealing with alloc_pseg(0) is harder.  As we never free the PCI
segments, we could just opencode the radix_tree_root of height=1 with a
static pseg0 structure, and that would drop the need for
pci_segemnts_init() completely.

This gets us into a far less fragile position, and one liable to survive
future refactoring too.

~Andrew

P.S. Yes AMD IOMMUs really do have BARs.  The BIOS programs them, then
sets a register in config space to hide the BAR registers.  You can
reprogram them if you know how.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-02-02 14:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-30 11:10 [PATCH for-4.20 0/3] AMD/IOMMU: assorted corrections Jan Beulich
2025-01-30 11:11 ` [PATCH for-4.20? 1/3] AMD/IOMMU: drop stray MSI enabling Jan Beulich
2025-01-31 18:46   ` Jason Andryuk
2025-02-02 13:50   ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-03  8:41     ` Jan Beulich
2025-02-03 14:19       ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-03 15:53         ` Jan Beulich
2025-02-03 16:19           ` Andrew Cooper
2025-01-30 11:12 ` [PATCH for-4.20 2/3] x86/PCI: init segments earlier Jan Beulich
2025-01-31 18:47   ` Jason Andryuk
2025-02-02 14:46   ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2025-02-03  9:09     ` Jan Beulich
2025-02-03 15:31       ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-03 12:45   ` Roger Pau Monné
2025-02-03 13:00     ` Jan Beulich
2025-02-03 13:03       ` Jan Beulich
2025-02-03 14:23         ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-03 15:55           ` Jan Beulich
2025-01-30 11:13 ` [PATCH for-4.20? 3/3] AMD/IOMMU: log IVHD contents Jan Beulich
2025-01-31 18:47   ` Jason Andryuk
2025-02-02 13:57   ` Andrew Cooper
2025-01-31 11:18 ` [PATCH for-4.20 0/3] AMD/IOMMU: assorted corrections Oleksii Kurochko

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=a4cc2c27-ed02-4453-9730-09d532b3edad@citrix.com \
    --to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 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.