* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 13:43 ` [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-01-19 14:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-19 14:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-20 0:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-20 4:56 ` Chen Fan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-01-19 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen Fan
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku, wency, caoj.fnst,
Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:43:30 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
> > In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
> > phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
> > found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
> > or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
> > ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
> > was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
> > during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
> > bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
> > with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
> > shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
> > irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
> > 255.
> >
> > See the call trace:
> >
> > [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
> > [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
> > [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
> > [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
> > [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
> > [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
> > [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
> > [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
> > [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
> > [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
> > [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
> > [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
> > [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
> > [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
> > [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
> > [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
> > [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> > [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
> > [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
> > [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
> > [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
> > [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
> > [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
> > [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
> > [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
> > [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
> > [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
> > [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
> > [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
> > [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
> > [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
> > [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
> > [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> > index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> > @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> > dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> > pin_name(pin));
> > + rc = 0;
> > + /*
> > + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
> > + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
> > + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>
> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>
> > + */
> > + if (dev->irq == 0xFF)
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> >
> > kfree(entry);
> > - return 0;
> > + return rc;
> > }
> >
> > rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
> >
>
> Well, if you look at acpi_isa_register_gsi(), you'll see that it
> actually does the check you're adding, so maybe the following should
> be done instead?
>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> @@ -436,12 +436,13 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
> */
> if (gsi < 0) {
> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> + rc = acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev);
> + if (rc)
> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> pin_name(pin));
>
> kfree(entry);
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>
> --
Alternatively, to be entirely on the safe side and avoid possible regressions
from returning errors when they were not returned previously, we can
just special case the 0xff value as you did, but in a slightly cleaner way:
---
drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
@@ -436,12 +436,18 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
* driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
*/
if (gsi < 0) {
- if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
+ /*
+ * The Interrupt Line value of 0xff is defined to mean "unknown"
+ * or "no connection" (PCI 3.0, Section 6.2.4, footnote on page
+ * 223), so return an error in that case.
+ */
+ rc = dev->irq == 0xff ? -EINVAL : 0;
+ if (rc || acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
pin_name(pin));
kfree(entry);
- return 0;
+ return rc;
}
rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 14:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-01-19 14:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-19 15:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Sinan Kaya @ 2016-01-19 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku, wency, caoj.fnst,
Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On 1/19/2016 9:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:43:30 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>> 255.
>>>
>>> See the call trace:
>>>
>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>> pin_name(pin));
>>> + rc = 0;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>>
>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
"Unknown" does not necessarily mean invalid. I have a platform that is using 255 as a valid legacy
interrupt on PCI Express.
>>
>>> + */
>>> + if (dev->irq == 0xFF)
>>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> kfree(entry);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return rc;
>>> }
>>>
>>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you look at acpi_isa_register_gsi(), you'll see that it
>> actually does the check you're adding, so maybe the following should
>> be done instead?
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> @@ -436,12 +436,13 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
>> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
>> */
>> if (gsi < 0) {
>> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>> + rc = acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev);
>> + if (rc)
>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>> pin_name(pin));
>>
>> kfree(entry);
>> - return 0;
>> + return rc;
>> }
>>
>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>
>> --
>
> Alternatively, to be entirely on the safe side and avoid possible regressions
> from returning errors when they were not returned previously, we can
> just special case the 0xff value as you did, but in a slightly cleaner way:
>
Is the issue limited to ISA? If yes, can we limit the change with ISA/PCI adapters only?
Is there a way to know if the system is PCIe vs. PCI?
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> @@ -436,12 +436,18 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
> */
> if (gsi < 0) {
> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> + /*
> + * The Interrupt Line value of 0xff is defined to mean "unknown"
> + * or "no connection" (PCI 3.0, Section 6.2.4, footnote on page
> + * 223), so return an error in that case.
> + */
> + rc = dev->irq == 0xff ? -EINVAL : 0;
> + if (rc || acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> pin_name(pin));
>
> kfree(entry);
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 14:48 ` Sinan Kaya
@ 2016-01-19 15:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-19 15:51 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-20 4:56 ` Chen Fan
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-01-19 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sinan Kaya
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown, izumi.taku, wency,
caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 9:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:43:30 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>>> 255.
>>>>
>>>> See the call trace:
>>>>
>>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>>> pin_name(pin));
>>>> + rc = 0;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>>>
>>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>
> "Unknown" does not necessarily mean invalid. I have a platform that is using 255 as a valid legacy
> interrupt on PCI Express.
So first off this is about the Interrupt Line value not about an
interrupt vector.
Second, the footnote in question is talking about x86 PCs, so if your
platform is not one of them, there is no connection here.
Which means that the change should be limited to x86 probably.
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 15:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-01-19 15:51 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-19 16:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-20 4:56 ` Chen Fan
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Sinan Kaya @ 2016-01-19 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown, izumi.taku, wency,
caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On 1/19/2016 10:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2016 9:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:43:30 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>>>> 255.
>>>>>
>>>>> See the call trace:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>>>> pin_name(pin));
>>>>> + rc = 0;
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>>>>
>>>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>>
>> "Unknown" does not necessarily mean invalid. I have a platform that is using 255 as a valid legacy
>> interrupt on PCI Express.
>
> So first off this is about the Interrupt Line value not about an
> interrupt vector.
Got it. Just to be clear, I assume this is not the value that code reads from the ACPI table.
+ rc = dev->irq == 0xff ? -EINVAL : 0;
I was nervous to see this check in common code.
>
> Second, the footnote in question is talking about x86 PCs, so if your
> platform is not one of them, there is no connection here.
>
> Which means that the change should be limited to x86 probably.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 15:51 ` Sinan Kaya
@ 2016-01-19 16:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-01-19 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sinan Kaya
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan,
ACPI Devel Maling List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown,
izumi.taku, wency, caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 10:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2016 9:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:43:30 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>>>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>>>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>>>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>>>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>>>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>>>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>>>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>>>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>>>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>>>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>>>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>>>>> 255.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See the call trace:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>>>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>>>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>>>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>>>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>>>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>>>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>>>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>>>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>>>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>>>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>>>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>>>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>>>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>>>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>>>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>>>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>>>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>>>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>>>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>>>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>>>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>>>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>>>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>>>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>>>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>>>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>>>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>>>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>>>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>>>>> pin_name(pin));
>>>>>> + rc = 0;
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>>>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>>>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>>>
>>> "Unknown" does not necessarily mean invalid. I have a platform that is using 255 as a valid legacy
>>> interrupt on PCI Express.
>>
>> So first off this is about the Interrupt Line value not about an
>> interrupt vector.
>
> Got it. Just to be clear, I assume this is not the value that code reads from the ACPI table.
>
> + rc = dev->irq == 0xff ? -EINVAL : 0;
>
> I was nervous to see this check in common code.
No, this value is read from the PCI register, but the interpretation
of it is arch-specific according to the spec.
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 15:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-19 15:51 ` Sinan Kaya
@ 2016-01-20 4:56 ` Chen Fan
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Chen Fan @ 2016-01-20 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Sinan Kaya
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown, izumi.taku, wency,
caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On 01/19/2016 11:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2016 9:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:43:30 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>>>> 255.
>>>>>
>>>>> See the call trace:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>>>> pin_name(pin));
>>>>> + rc = 0;
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>>>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>> "Unknown" does not necessarily mean invalid. I have a platform that is using 255 as a valid legacy
>> interrupt on PCI Express.
> So first off this is about the Interrupt Line value not about an
> interrupt vector.
>
> Second, the footnote in question is talking about x86 PCs, so if your
> platform is not one of them, there is no connection here.
>
> Which means that the change should be limited to x86 probably.
That's right, we should wrap this code in arch x86.
Thanks,
Chen
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 13:43 ` [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-19 14:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-01-20 0:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-20 4:21 ` Chen Fan
2016-01-21 14:41 ` Cao jin
2016-01-20 4:56 ` Chen Fan
2 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Helgaas @ 2016-01-20 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Chen Fan, linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku, wency,
caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
[+cc Jiang]
Hi Chen,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:43:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
> > In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
This has more information than necessary. I don't think Secure Boot is
really relevant, and nor are the timestamps and stack addresses below.
> > phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
> > found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
> > or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
> > ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
> > was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
> > during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
> > bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
> > with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
> > shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
> > irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
> > 255.
> > See the call trace:
> >
> > [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
> > [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
> > [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
> > [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
> > [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
> > [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
> > [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
> > [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
> > [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
> > [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
> > [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
> > [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
> > [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
> > [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
> > [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
> > [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
> > [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> > [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
> > [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
> > [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
> > [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
> > [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
> > [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
> > [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
> > [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
> > [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
> > [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
> > [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
> > [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
> > [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
> > [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
Since the Interrupt Line register is writable and might contain any
value, it would be nice if Linux could at least tolerate anything
firmware might leave there without a backtrace, even if we end up not
being able to use the device.
Your patch changes the acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value from 0 to
-EINVAL for this case. You're running v3.10, and this change probably
makes pci_enable_device() fail. I suppose the user-visible effect is
that with your patch,
- there's no backtrace,
- i801_smbus fails with "Failed to enable SMBus PCI device" instead
of with "Failed to allocate irq 255", and
- i801_smbus fails even if no other device is using IRQ 255, instead
of "succeeding" and using an IRQ 255 that probably doesn't work
(this seems like maybe the most important difference)
Jiang has changed this path with 890e4847587f ("PCI: Add
pcibios_alloc_irq() and pcibios_free_irq()"), so I think on newer
kernels, we'll never even call the i801_smbus probe function.
What behavior are you looking for from i801_smbus? Decline to claim
the device? Try to use the device without interrupts? Try to figure
out an interrupt in some other way?
I'm not 100% sure that 890e4847587f does the right thing by preventing
a driver from claiming a device where we can't set up an IRQ. It's
conceivable that a driver could still operate a device even without an
IRQ.
> > [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
> > [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> > index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> > @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> > dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> > pin_name(pin));
> > + rc = 0;
> > + /*
> > + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
> > + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
> > + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>
> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>
> > + */
> > + if (dev->irq == 0xFF)
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> >
> > kfree(entry);
> > - return 0;
> > + return rc;
> > }
> >
> > rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
> >
>
> Well, if you look at acpi_isa_register_gsi(), you'll see that it
> actually does the check you're adding, so maybe the following should
> be done instead?
>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> @@ -436,12 +436,13 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
> */
> if (gsi < 0) {
> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> + rc = acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev);
> + if (rc)
> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> pin_name(pin));
>
> kfree(entry);
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-20 0:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2016-01-20 4:21 ` Chen Fan
2016-01-20 17:12 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-21 14:41 ` Cao jin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Chen Fan @ 2016-01-20 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku, wency, caoj.fnst,
Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On 01/20/2016 08:24 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Jiang]
>
> Hi Chen,
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:43:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
> This has more information than necessary. I don't think Secure Boot is
> really relevant, and nor are the timestamps and stack addresses below.
I just think enable the Secure Boot, probably the firmware assigned
a 0xff interrupt to the device which unauthenticated.
>
>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>> 255.
>>> See the call trace:
>>>
>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
> Since the Interrupt Line register is writable and might contain any
> value, it would be nice if Linux could at least tolerate anything
> firmware might leave there without a backtrace, even if we end up not
> being able to use the device.
>
> Your patch changes the acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value from 0 to
> -EINVAL for this case. You're running v3.10, and this change probably
> makes pci_enable_device() fail. I suppose the user-visible effect is
> that with your patch,
>
> - there's no backtrace,
> - i801_smbus fails with "Failed to enable SMBus PCI device" instead
> of with "Failed to allocate irq 255", and
> - i801_smbus fails even if no other device is using IRQ 255, instead
> of "succeeding" and using an IRQ 255 that probably doesn't work
> (this seems like maybe the most important difference)
>
> Jiang has changed this path with 890e4847587f ("PCI: Add
> pcibios_alloc_irq() and pcibios_free_irq()"), so I think on newer
> kernels, we'll never even call the i801_smbus probe function.
no, on newer kernels, this phenomenon also probably appearance,
with this patch 890e4847587f change, it didn't change the
acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value, with the problem it also return 0,
and then still call __pci_device_probe() to do i801_smbus probe
function in pci_device_probe() function.
>
> What behavior are you looking for from i801_smbus? Decline to claim
> the device? Try to use the device without interrupts? Try to figure
> out an interrupt in some other way?
I think if BIOS assigned 0xff interrupt line to device, and kernel can't
look
up a valid interrupt for the device, we should not allow to use the device.
>
> I'm not 100% sure that 890e4847587f does the right thing by preventing
> a driver from claiming a device where we can't set up an IRQ. It's
> conceivable that a driver could still operate a device even without an
> IRQ.
I don't understanding, does without IRQ for device still work?
Thanks,
Chen
>
>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>> pin_name(pin));
>>> + rc = 0;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>>
>>> + */
>>> + if (dev->irq == 0xFF)
>>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> kfree(entry);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return rc;
>>> }
>>>
>>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>>
>> Well, if you look at acpi_isa_register_gsi(), you'll see that it
>> actually does the check you're adding, so maybe the following should
>> be done instead?
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> @@ -436,12 +436,13 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
>> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
>> */
>> if (gsi < 0) {
>> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>> + rc = acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev);
>> + if (rc)
>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>> pin_name(pin));
>>
>> kfree(entry);
>> - return 0;
>> + return rc;
>> }
>>
>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-20 4:21 ` Chen Fan
@ 2016-01-20 17:12 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-21 8:02 ` Chen Fan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Helgaas @ 2016-01-20 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen Fan
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku,
wency, caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:21:24PM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>
> On 01/20/2016 08:24 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >[+cc Jiang]
> >
> >Hi Chen,
> >
> >On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:43:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
> >>>In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
> >This has more information than necessary. I don't think Secure Boot is
> >really relevant, and nor are the timestamps and stack addresses below.
> I just think enable the Secure Boot, probably the firmware assigned
> a 0xff interrupt to the device which unauthenticated.
The important thing is that you're changing the way we handle
Interrupt Line being 0xff. That affects more than just Secure Boot
users. It's fine to mention Secure Boot later, as one example of an
affected scenario.
I don't know anything about Secure Boot, but setting Interrupt Line to
0xff would obviously not be a robust way of hiding an unauthenticated
device. But it sounds like you're just speculating about that anyway.
> >>>phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
> >>>found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
> >>>or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
> >>>ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
> >>>was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
> >>>during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
> >>>bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
> >>>with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
> >>>shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
> >>>irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
> >>>255.
> >>>See the call trace:
> >>>
> >>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
> >>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
> >>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
> >>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
> >>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
> >>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
> >>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
> >>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
> >>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
> >>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
> >>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
> >>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
> >>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
> >>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
> >>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
> >>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
> >>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> >>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
> >>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
> >>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
> >>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
> >>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
> >>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
> >>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
> >>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
> >>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
> >>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
> >>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
> >>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> >>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
> >>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
> >>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
> >Since the Interrupt Line register is writable and might contain any
> >value, it would be nice if Linux could at least tolerate anything
> >firmware might leave there without a backtrace, even if we end up not
> >being able to use the device.
> >
> >Your patch changes the acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value from 0 to
> >-EINVAL for this case. You're running v3.10, and this change probably
> >makes pci_enable_device() fail. I suppose the user-visible effect is
> >that with your patch,
> >
> > - there's no backtrace,
> > - i801_smbus fails with "Failed to enable SMBus PCI device" instead
> > of with "Failed to allocate irq 255", and
> > - i801_smbus fails even if no other device is using IRQ 255, instead
> > of "succeeding" and using an IRQ 255 that probably doesn't work
> > (this seems like maybe the most important difference)
> >
> >Jiang has changed this path with 890e4847587f ("PCI: Add
> >pcibios_alloc_irq() and pcibios_free_irq()"), so I think on newer
> >kernels, we'll never even call the i801_smbus probe function.
>
> no, on newer kernels, this phenomenon also probably appearance,
> with this patch 890e4847587f change, it didn't change the
> acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value, with the problem it also return 0,
> and then still call __pci_device_probe() to do i801_smbus probe
> function in pci_device_probe() function.
I meant that *with your patch*, newer kernels won't call the
i801_smbus probe function.
> >What behavior are you looking for from i801_smbus? Decline to claim
> >the device? Try to use the device without interrupts? Try to figure
> >out an interrupt in some other way?
>
> I think if BIOS assigned 0xff interrupt line to device, and kernel
> can't look
> up a valid interrupt for the device, we should not allow to use the device.
> >
> >I'm not 100% sure that 890e4847587f does the right thing by preventing
> >a driver from claiming a device where we can't set up an IRQ. It's
> >conceivable that a driver could still operate a device even without an
> >IRQ.
>
> I don't understanding, does without IRQ for device still work?
Polling drivers do not need IRQs. The PCI core has no idea whether a
driver is interrupt-driven or polling, so we can't assume that a
device with no IRQ is useless.
Bjorn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-20 17:12 ` Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2016-01-21 8:02 ` Chen Fan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Chen Fan @ 2016-01-21 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku,
wency, caoj.fnst, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On 01/21/2016 01:12 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:21:24PM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>> On 01/20/2016 08:24 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> [+cc Jiang]
>>>
>>> Hi Chen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:43:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>> This has more information than necessary. I don't think Secure Boot is
>>> really relevant, and nor are the timestamps and stack addresses below.
>> I just think enable the Secure Boot, probably the firmware assigned
>> a 0xff interrupt to the device which unauthenticated.
> The important thing is that you're changing the way we handle
> Interrupt Line being 0xff. That affects more than just Secure Boot
> users. It's fine to mention Secure Boot later, as one example of an
> affected scenario.
>
> I don't know anything about Secure Boot, but setting Interrupt Line to
> 0xff would obviously not be a robust way of hiding an unauthenticated
> device. But it sounds like you're just speculating about that anyway.
>
>>>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>>>> 255.
>>>>> See the call trace:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>> Since the Interrupt Line register is writable and might contain any
>>> value, it would be nice if Linux could at least tolerate anything
>>> firmware might leave there without a backtrace, even if we end up not
>>> being able to use the device.
>>>
>>> Your patch changes the acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value from 0 to
>>> -EINVAL for this case. You're running v3.10, and this change probably
>>> makes pci_enable_device() fail. I suppose the user-visible effect is
>>> that with your patch,
>>>
>>> - there's no backtrace,
>>> - i801_smbus fails with "Failed to enable SMBus PCI device" instead
>>> of with "Failed to allocate irq 255", and
>>> - i801_smbus fails even if no other device is using IRQ 255, instead
>>> of "succeeding" and using an IRQ 255 that probably doesn't work
>>> (this seems like maybe the most important difference)
>>>
>>> Jiang has changed this path with 890e4847587f ("PCI: Add
>>> pcibios_alloc_irq() and pcibios_free_irq()"), so I think on newer
>>> kernels, we'll never even call the i801_smbus probe function.
>> no, on newer kernels, this phenomenon also probably appearance,
>> with this patch 890e4847587f change, it didn't change the
>> acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value, with the problem it also return 0,
>> and then still call __pci_device_probe() to do i801_smbus probe
>> function in pci_device_probe() function.
> I meant that *with your patch*, newer kernels won't call the
> i801_smbus probe function.
>
>>> What behavior are you looking for from i801_smbus? Decline to claim
>>> the device? Try to use the device without interrupts? Try to figure
>>> out an interrupt in some other way?
>> I think if BIOS assigned 0xff interrupt line to device, and kernel
>> can't look
>> up a valid interrupt for the device, we should not allow to use the device.
>>> I'm not 100% sure that 890e4847587f does the right thing by preventing
>>> a driver from claiming a device where we can't set up an IRQ. It's
>>> conceivable that a driver could still operate a device even without an
>>> IRQ.
>> I don't understanding, does without IRQ for device still work?
> Polling drivers do not need IRQs. The PCI core has no idea whether a
> driver is interrupt-driven or polling, so we can't assume that a
> device with no IRQ is useless.
Got it, I observed the smbus driver has changed to polling when request_irq
failed on new kernel.
can we use a broken_irq flag in pci_dev to mark the device irq if invalid ?
then if a device broken_irq set, we don't need to call request_irq and
directly return failure. of course, maybe we need to check this for all
devices.
BTW, can we skip the 0xff irq number when allocating irq in x86 arch ?
Thanks,
Chen
>
> Bjorn
>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-20 0:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-20 4:21 ` Chen Fan
@ 2016-01-21 14:41 ` Cao jin
2016-01-21 22:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cao jin @ 2016-01-21 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Chen Fan, linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku, wency,
Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
Hi,
IMHO, I think maybe modification on i801_smbus driver is easier.
Because when i801_smbus request_irq using pci_dev->irq, this
pci_dev->irq seems still holds the value read from register(
pci_setup_device->pci_read_irq), if the value is 255, it is invalid in
register, but when request_irq, 255 is a valid value(with
CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC & CONFIG_PCI_MSI defined). so I guess maybe we can do
a judgement in i801_smbus, like:
if (pci_dev->irq == 255) {
conversion to another irq # which maybe still not be used
}
On 01/20/2016 08:24 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Jiang]
>
> Hi Chen,
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:43:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>
> This has more information than necessary. I don't think Secure Boot is
> really relevant, and nor are the timestamps and stack addresses below.
>
>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>>> 255.
>
>>> See the call trace:
>>>
>>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>
> Since the Interrupt Line register is writable and might contain any
> value, it would be nice if Linux could at least tolerate anything
> firmware might leave there without a backtrace, even if we end up not
> being able to use the device.
>
> Your patch changes the acpi_pci_irq_enable() return value from 0 to
> -EINVAL for this case. You're running v3.10, and this change probably
> makes pci_enable_device() fail. I suppose the user-visible effect is
> that with your patch,
>
> - there's no backtrace,
> - i801_smbus fails with "Failed to enable SMBus PCI device" instead
> of with "Failed to allocate irq 255", and
> - i801_smbus fails even if no other device is using IRQ 255, instead
> of "succeeding" and using an IRQ 255 that probably doesn't work
> (this seems like maybe the most important difference)
>
> Jiang has changed this path with 890e4847587f ("PCI: Add
> pcibios_alloc_irq() and pcibios_free_irq()"), so I think on newer
> kernels, we'll never even call the i801_smbus probe function.
>
> What behavior are you looking for from i801_smbus? Decline to claim
> the device? Try to use the device without interrupts? Try to figure
> out an interrupt in some other way?
>
> I'm not 100% sure that 890e4847587f does the right thing by preventing
> a driver from claiming a device where we can't set up an IRQ. It's
> conceivable that a driver could still operate a device even without an
> IRQ.
>
>>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>>> pin_name(pin));
>>> + rc = 0;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
>>
>> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>>
>>> + */
>>> + if (dev->irq == 0xFF)
>>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> kfree(entry);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return rc;
>>> }
>>>
>>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you look at acpi_isa_register_gsi(), you'll see that it
>> actually does the check you're adding, so maybe the following should
>> be done instead?
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> @@ -436,12 +436,13 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
>> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
>> */
>> if (gsi < 0) {
>> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>> + rc = acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev);
>> + if (rc)
>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>> pin_name(pin));
>>
>> kfree(entry);
>> - return 0;
>> + return rc;
>> }
>>
>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> .
>
--
Yours Sincerely,
Cao jin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-21 14:41 ` Cao jin
@ 2016-01-21 22:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-22 17:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-01-21 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cao jin
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan,
ACPI Devel Maling List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown,
izumi.taku, wency, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IMHO, I think maybe modification on i801_smbus driver is easier.
>
> Because when i801_smbus request_irq using pci_dev->irq, this
> pci_dev->irq seems still holds the value read from register(
> pci_setup_device->pci_read_irq), if the value is 255, it is invalid in
> register,
Right.
Which is why the PCI core should not leak it into the driver's ->probe callback.
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-21 22:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-01-22 17:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-22 19:23 ` David Daney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Helgaas @ 2016-01-22 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Cao jin, Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown, izumi.taku, wency,
Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:58:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMHO, I think maybe modification on i801_smbus driver is easier.
> >
> > Because when i801_smbus request_irq using pci_dev->irq, this
> > pci_dev->irq seems still holds the value read from register(
> > pci_setup_device->pci_read_irq), if the value is 255, it is invalid in
> > register,
>
> Right.
>
> Which is why the PCI core should not leak it into the driver's ->probe callback.
Is there a reserved IRQ value we could use to mean "invalid"?
I guess we have NR_IRQS as a ceiling, so the range of valid IRQs would be
[0 .. NR_IRQS - 1]. It looks like irq_desc() and a few drivers already
rely on NR_IRQS being the bound:
lpc32xx_kscan_probe
lpc32xx_nand_probe
pcmcia_setup_isa_irq
lpc32xx_rtc_probe
apbuart_verify_port
ar933x_uart_verify_port
lqasc_verify_port
So I guess we could use ~0 as "invalid IRQ", and maybe the PCI core could
set dev->irq to ~0 in these cases, and drivers like i801_smbus could check
for that. Maybe a wrapper like irq_valid() would be useful.
Bjorn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-22 17:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2016-01-22 19:23 ` David Daney
2016-01-23 2:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Daney @ 2016-01-22 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Cao jin, Rafael J. Wysocki, Chen Fan,
ACPI Devel Maling List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Len Brown,
izumi.taku, wency, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On 01/22/2016 09:53 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:58:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> IMHO, I think maybe modification on i801_smbus driver is easier.
>>>
>>> Because when i801_smbus request_irq using pci_dev->irq, this
>>> pci_dev->irq seems still holds the value read from register(
>>> pci_setup_device->pci_read_irq), if the value is 255, it is invalid in
>>> register,
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> Which is why the PCI core should not leak it into the driver's ->probe callback.
>
> Is there a reserved IRQ value we could use to mean "invalid"?
In many (most) cases, zero indicates no irq.
>
> I guess we have NR_IRQS as a ceiling, so the range of valid IRQs would be
> [0 .. NR_IRQS - 1]. It looks like irq_desc() and a few drivers already
> rely on NR_IRQS being the bound:
>
> lpc32xx_kscan_probe
> lpc32xx_nand_probe
> pcmcia_setup_isa_irq
> lpc32xx_rtc_probe
> apbuart_verify_port
> ar933x_uart_verify_port
> lqasc_verify_port
>
> So I guess we could use ~0 as "invalid IRQ", and maybe the PCI core could
> set dev->irq to ~0 in these cases, and drivers like i801_smbus could check
> for that. Maybe a wrapper like irq_valid() would be useful.
>
> Bjorn
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-22 19:23 ` David Daney
@ 2016-01-23 2:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-01-23 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Daney
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Cao jin, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Chen Fan, ACPI Devel Maling List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Len Brown, izumi.taku, wency, Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI, Jiang Liu
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:23 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 09:53 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:58:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, I think maybe modification on i801_smbus driver is easier.
>>>>
>>>> Because when i801_smbus request_irq using pci_dev->irq, this
>>>> pci_dev->irq seems still holds the value read from register(
>>>> pci_setup_device->pci_read_irq), if the value is 255, it is invalid in
>>>> register,
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Which is why the PCI core should not leak it into the driver's ->probe
>>> callback.
>>
>>
>> Is there a reserved IRQ value we could use to mean "invalid"?
>
>
> In many (most) cases, zero indicates no irq.
Zero is a valid timer IRQ on x86, though, so it's better not to give
any special meaning to it in general.
Using ~0 as suggested by Bjorn should work as it would cause
request_irq() to return -EINVAL if passed to it AFAICS.
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
2016-01-19 13:43 ` [PATCH] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-19 14:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-20 0:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2016-01-20 4:56 ` Chen Fan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Chen Fan @ 2016-01-20 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-kernel, lenb, izumi.taku, wency, caoj.fnst,
Bjorn Helgaas, Linux PCI
On 01/19/2016 09:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 09:45:13 AM Chen Fan wrote:
>> In our environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails, and call trace
>> shows, actually, we should expose the error early, rather than in request
>> irq, here we simply fix the problem by return err when find the irq is
>> 255.
>>
>> See the call trace:
>>
>> [ 32.459195] ipmi device interface
>> [ 32.612907] shpchp: Standard Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver version: 0.4
>> [ 32.800459] ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 4.0.1-k-rh
>> [ 32.818319] ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2014 Intel Corporation.
>> [ 32.844009] lpc_ich 0001:80:1f.0: I/O space for ACPI uninitialized
>> [ 32.850093] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>> [ 32.851134] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>> [ 32.851136] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>> [ 32.851164] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa
>> [ 32.851168] CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>> [ 32.851170] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>> [ 32.851178] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>> [ 32.851208] ffff88086c330b00 00000000e233a9df ffff88086d57bca0 ffffffff81603f36
>> [ 32.851227] ffff88086d57bcf8 ffffffff8110d23a ffff88686fe02000 0000000000000246
>> [ 32.851246] ffff88086a9a8c00 00000000e233a9df ffffffffa00ad220 0000000000000080
>> [ 32.851247] Call Trace:
>> [ 32.851261] [<ffffffff81603f36>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>> [ 32.851271] [<ffffffff8110d23a>] __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>> [ 32.851282] [<ffffffffa00ad220>] ? i801_check_pre.isra.5+0xe0/0xe0 [i2c_i801]
>> [ 32.851289] [<ffffffff8110d3bc>] request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>> [ 32.851298] [<ffffffffa00ae87f>] i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>> [ 32.851308] [<ffffffff81308385>] local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>> [ 32.851315] [<ffffffff8108bfd4>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x14/0x20
>> [ 32.851323] [<ffffffff8108f0ab>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x470
>> [ 32.851330] [<ffffffff81090003>] worker_thread+0x293/0x400
>> [ 32.851338] [<ffffffff8108fd70>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
>> [ 32.851346] [<ffffffff8109726f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
>> [ 32.851353] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>> [ 32.851362] [<ffffffff81613cfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [ 32.851369] [<ffffffff810971a0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
>> [ 32.851373] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>> [ 32.851435] i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>> [ 33.180145] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: Multiq[ 33.240538] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: (PCI Express:03:e0
>> [ 33.280826] ixgbe 0000:5a:00.0: MAC: 3, PHY: 0, PBA No: 000000-000
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> index d30184c..d2f47f8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>> @@ -439,9 +439,17 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
>> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
>> pin_name(pin));
>> + rc = 0;
>> + /*
>> + * Excluding the BIOS report the value 255, which meaning
>> + * "unknown" or "no connection" in PCI Local Bus Specification
>> + * Revision 3.0 February 3, 2004, P223.
> You mean the footnote on page 223 talking about the Interrupt Line values, right?
>
>> + */
>> + if (dev->irq == 0xFF)
>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>>
>> kfree(entry);
>> - return 0;
>> + return rc;
>> }
>>
>> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>>
> Well, if you look at acpi_isa_register_gsi(), you'll see that it
> actually does the check you're adding, so maybe the following should
> be done instead?
no, the function acpi_isa_register_gsi() which check
the dev->irq > 0 && (dev->irq <= 0xF), so if the dev->irq is 0xff,
it should return 0 directly. right?
>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> @@ -436,12 +436,13 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *
> * driver reported one, then use it. Exit in any case.
> */
> if (gsi < 0) {
> - if (acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev))
> + rc = acpi_isa_register_gsi(dev);
> + if (rc)
> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> pin_name(pin));
>
> kfree(entry);
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
> }
>
> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>
>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread