From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Andreas Wild" <andiwild@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Avoid link retraining on empty ports when lifting speed restriction
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 09:39:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260801093913.7D55B1F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260801092152.5643-1-andiwild@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Deriving Target Link Speed directly from LNKCAP ignores LNKCAP2 and software constraints.
- [High] Lockless modification of Target Link Speed races with bandwidth controllers and misses LTSSM state synchronization.
- [Medium] Unhandled error from pcie_capability_read_dword() causes writing a Reserved value to Target Link Speed.
- [Medium] Reusing the `ret` variable can cause a false positive success return if the link drops concurrently.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] PCI: Avoid link retraining on empty ports when lifting speed restriction ---
commit 8c8f91b0ee4d3449b1bc98ead3ff414abb7453a9
Author: Andreas Wild <andiwild@gmail.com>
PCI: Avoid link retraining on empty ports when lifting speed restriction
This commit speeds up boot times by skipping link retraining on unconnected
downstream ports when lifting a 2.5GT/s firmware restriction. It directly
programs the Target Link Speed instead of initiating retraining if the Data
Link Layer Link Active is clear.
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> index b09f27f7846fc..d0c8b09712faf 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ int pcie_failed_link_retrain(struct pci_dev *dev)
> u16 lnksta, lnkctl2, oldlnkctl2;
> enum pci_bus_speed speed_cap;
> int ret = -ENOTTY;
> + u32 lnkcap;
>
> if (!pci_is_pcie(dev) || !pcie_downstream_port(dev) ||
> !pcie_cap_has_lnkctl2(dev) || !dev->link_active_reporting)
[ ... ]
> @@ -115,9 +116,25 @@ int pcie_failed_link_retrain(struct pci_dev *dev)
> goto err;
> }
>
> + pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKSTA, &lnksta);
> pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2, &lnkctl2);
> if ((lnkctl2 & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS) == PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_2_5GT) {
> pci_info(dev, "removing 2.5GT/s downstream link speed restriction\n");
> +
> + /*
> + * With no link partner the retraining can never complete and
> + * every attempt costs PCIE_LINK_RETRAIN_TIMEOUT_MS. Program
> + * the Target Link Speed directly and skip the retraining; the
> + * link will train at that speed once a device shows up.
> + */
> + if (!(lnksta & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_DLLLA)) {
> + pcie_capability_read_dword(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCAP, &lnkcap);
[Severity: Medium]
Could this result in writing a reserved value to Target Link Speed?
If pcie_capability_read_dword() encounters a transient bus error, it returns
an error code and leaves lnkcap as 0. Because the return value isn't checked,
lnkcap & PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS would evaluate to 0000b (Reserved), which is then
written to the PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS field.
> + pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2,
> + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS,
> + lnkcap & PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS);
[Severity: High]
Does this bypass software speed constraints and PCIe 3.0+ requirements?
By deriving the Target Link Speed directly from LNKCAP, the code ignores
PCI_EXP_LNKCAP2, which is mandatory for determining supported speeds on newer
devices.
The PCI core already evaluates and caches the correct maximum speed in
dev->supported_speeds, which is retrieved earlier in this function as
speed_cap.
[Severity: High]
Is it safe to modify the Target Link Speed without subsystem locking or
hardware retraining synchronization?
By calling pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word() directly, this bypasses
pcie_set_target_speed(). This skips acquiring pcie_bwctrl_setspeed_rwsem
and data->set_speed_mutex, potentially racing with thermal governors.
Furthermore, missing the pcie_retrain_link() call means that if a device is
hot-plugged concurrently, the hardware LTSSM might not recognize the updated
Target Link Speed.
> + return ret;
[Severity: Medium]
Does returning ret here introduce a race condition if the link drops
concurrently?
If the initial pcie_lbms_seen() workaround block earlier in this function
successfully retrains the link, ret is set to 0.
If the link is unstable and drops immediately after, this second block reads
DLLLA == 0. This early return will then execute with ret == 0, falsely
signaling success when the link has actually dropped.
> + }
> +
> ret = pcie_set_target_speed(dev, speed_cap, false);
> if (ret)
> goto err;
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260801092152.5643-1-andiwild@gmail.com?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-01 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-01 9:21 [PATCH] PCI: Avoid link retraining on empty ports when lifting speed restriction Andreas Wild
2026-08-01 9:39 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260801093913.7D55B1F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=andiwild@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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