From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/VPD: Refactor pci_vpd_size
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 23:13:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0fb70529-3b0e-4865-bf6d-460030948019@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210713202555.GA1771351@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On 13.07.2021 22:25, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Hannes]
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:58:40PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> The only Short Resource Data Type tag is the end tag. This allows to
>> remove the generic SRDT tag handling and the code be significantly
>> simplified.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/vpd.c | 46 ++++++++++++----------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/vpd.c b/drivers/pci/vpd.c
>> index 26bf7c877..ecdce170f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/vpd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/vpd.c
>> @@ -73,50 +73,28 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_write_vpd);
>> static size_t pci_vpd_size(struct pci_dev *dev, size_t old_size)
>> {
>> size_t off = 0;
>> - unsigned char header[1+2]; /* 1 byte tag, 2 bytes length */
>> + u8 header[3]; /* 1 byte tag, 2 bytes length */
>>
>> while (off < old_size && pci_read_vpd(dev, off, 1, header) == 1) {
>> - unsigned char tag;
>> -
>> if (!header[0] && !off) {
>> pci_info(dev, "Invalid VPD tag 00, assume missing optional VPD EPROM\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> - if (header[0] & PCI_VPD_LRDT) {
>> - /* Large Resource Data Type Tag */
>> - tag = pci_vpd_lrdt_tag(header);
>> - /* Only read length from known tag items */
>> - if ((tag == PCI_VPD_LTIN_ID_STRING) ||
>> - (tag == PCI_VPD_LTIN_RO_DATA) ||
>> - (tag == PCI_VPD_LTIN_RW_DATA)) {
>> - if (pci_read_vpd(dev, off+1, 2,
>> - &header[1]) != 2) {
>> - pci_warn(dev, "invalid large VPD tag %02x size at offset %zu",
>> - tag, off + 1);
>> - return 0;
>> - }
>> - off += PCI_VPD_LRDT_TAG_SIZE +
>> - pci_vpd_lrdt_size(header);
>> - }
>> - } else {
>> - /* Short Resource Data Type Tag */
>> - off += PCI_VPD_SRDT_TAG_SIZE +
>> - pci_vpd_srdt_size(header);
>> - tag = pci_vpd_srdt_tag(header);
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (tag == PCI_VPD_STIN_END) /* End tag descriptor */
>> - return off;
>> + if (header[0] == PCI_VPD_SRDT_END)
>> + return off + PCI_VPD_SRDT_TAG_SIZE;
>
> This makes the code beautiful. But I think pci_vpd_size() is too
> picky even now, and this patch makes it more so.
>
> I don't know why pci_vpd_size() currently checks the tags for
> ID_STRING, RO_DATA, and RW_DATA. That seems too aggressive to me.
>
It checks for these tags (+ the end tag) because it's the only ones
defined for VPD by the PCI spec.
> I think these data items originally came from PNP ISA, and it defines
> several other tags. Of course, that wasn't for PCI devices, but a
> Google search for '"invalid" "vpd tag" "at offset"' does find several
> cases where VPD contains things that look like PNP ISA data items.
>
Right, the tag format is based on PNP ISA. But PCI spec explicitly
lists the supported tags.
I tried to do the same search and found:
- "invalid short vpd tag 00" and "invalid large tag 7f"
Both are symptom of a missing optional VPD EEPROM.
- "ixgbe 0000:0b:00.0: invalid short VPD tag 06 at offset 4" and a
similar message for igb
I didn't see any response explaining what causes this issue.
My personal guess: Some OEM provided invalid VPD EEPROM content.
Offset 4 is the first character of the ID string. The message
indicates that the ID tag declares an empty ID. That would be weird.
> I think we should compute the VPD size by iterating through it looking
> only at the type (small or large) and the data item length until we
> find the End Tag.
>
Still I didn't see any example of a rejected valid VPD image.
Not checking for supported tags increases he risk that we interpret
a random byte as tag and read beyond the VPD end, what is known to
cause a freeze on some devices.
> This code originally came from 104daa71b396 ("PCI: Determine actual
> VPD size on first access"), so I added Hannes in case there was some
> reason we do the extra validation.
>
>> - if ((tag != PCI_VPD_LTIN_ID_STRING) &&
>> - (tag != PCI_VPD_LTIN_RO_DATA) &&
>> - (tag != PCI_VPD_LTIN_RW_DATA)) {
>> - pci_warn(dev, "invalid %s VPD tag %02x at offset %zu",
>> - (header[0] & PCI_VPD_LRDT) ? "large" : "short",
>> - tag, off);
>> + if (header[0] != PCI_VPD_LRDT_ID_STRING &&
>> + header[0] != PCI_VPD_LRDT_RO_DATA &&
>> + header[0] != PCI_VPD_LRDT_RW_DATA) {
>> + pci_warn(dev, "invalid VPD tag %02x at offset %zu", header[0], off);
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (pci_read_vpd(dev, off + 1, 2, header + 1) != 2)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + off += PCI_VPD_LRDT_TAG_SIZE + pci_vpd_lrdt_size(header);
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-13 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 20:53 [PATCH 0/5] PCI/VPD: Further improvements Heiner Kallweit
2021-05-13 20:55 ` [PATCH 2/5] PCI: Clean up VPD constants and functions in pci.h Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-14 16:43 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-05-13 20:56 ` [PATCH 3/5] PCI/VPD: Remove old_size argument from pci_vpd_size Heiner Kallweit
2021-05-13 20:56 ` [PATCH 4/5] PCI/VPD: Make pci_vpd_wait uninterruptible Heiner Kallweit
2021-05-13 20:58 ` [PATCH 1/5] PCI/VPD: Refactor pci_vpd_size Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-13 20:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-13 21:13 ` Heiner Kallweit [this message]
2021-07-14 15:50 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-15 8:31 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-05-13 21:02 ` [PATCH 5/5] PCI/VPD: Remove pci_vpd member flag Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-06 5:56 ` [PATCH 0/5] PCI/VPD: Further improvements Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-06 14:32 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-15 21:59 ` [PATCH 0/5] PCI/VPD: pci_vpd_size() cleanups Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-15 21:59 ` [PATCH 1/5] PCI/VPD: Correct diagnostic for VPD read failure Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-15 22:07 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-16 5:58 ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-07-15 21:59 ` [PATCH 2/5] PCI/VPD: Check Resource tags against those valid for type Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-16 5:59 ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-07-15 21:59 ` [PATCH 3/5] PCI/VPD: Consolidate missing EEPROM checks Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-15 22:16 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-28 23:42 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-29 6:10 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-07-29 18:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-16 6:00 ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-07-15 21:59 ` [PATCH 4/5] PCI/VPD: Don't check Large Resource types for validity Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-16 6:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-07-28 23:46 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-15 21:59 ` [PATCH 5/5] PCI/VPD: Allow access to valid parts of VPD if some is invalid Bjorn Helgaas
2021-07-16 6:04 ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-08-02 22:32 ` [PATCH 0/5] PCI/VPD: Further improvements Bjorn Helgaas
2021-08-05 19:10 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-08-05 19:29 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=0fb70529-3b0e-4865-bf6d-460030948019@gmail.com \
--to=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.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).