Linux PCI subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Reject sysfs attempts to enable states that are not covered by policy
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 13:28:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200909182846.GA719960@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f51768aa-8e8d-65e0-497c-eda1741e8a0a@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> When trying to enable a state that is not covered by the policy,
> then the change request will be silently ignored. That's not too
> nice to the user, therefore reject such attempts explicitly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> index b17e5ffd3..cd0f30ca9 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> @@ -1224,11 +1224,16 @@ static ssize_t aspm_attr_store_common(struct device *dev,
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>  	struct pcie_link_state *link = pcie_aspm_get_link(pdev);
> +	u32 policy_state = policy_to_aspm_state(link);
>  	bool state_enable;
>  
>  	if (strtobool(buf, &state_enable) < 0)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	/* reject attempts to enable states not covered by policy */
> +	if (state_enable && state & ~policy_state)
> +		return -EPERM;

I really like the sentiment of this patch, but I don't like the fact
that this test for states being covered by the policy is here by
itself.

There must be some place in the pcie_config_aspm_link() path that does
a similar test and silently ignores things not covered by the policy?
If we could take advantage of *that* test, we won't have to worry
about things getting out of sync if we change that test in the future.

Maybe pcie_config_aspm_link() could return -EPERM if the policy
doesn't allow the requested state, and we could just notice that here?

>  	down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
>  	mutex_lock(&aspm_lock);
>  
> @@ -1241,7 +1246,7 @@ static ssize_t aspm_attr_store_common(struct device *dev,
>  		link->aspm_disable |= state;
>  	}
>  
> -	pcie_config_aspm_link(link, policy_to_aspm_state(link));
> +	pcie_config_aspm_link(link, policy_state);
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&aspm_lock);
>  	up_read(&pci_bus_sem);
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-09 18:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-20  6:08 [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Reject sysfs attempts to enable states that are not covered by policy Heiner Kallweit
2020-09-09 18:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2020-12-06 17:48   ` Heiner Kallweit

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=20200909182846.GA719960@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
    --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