lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] vfio/pci: Don't probe devices that can't be reset
From
Date
On 08/18/2017 07:12 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:42:31 +0200
> Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:00:17AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:14:23 +0200
>>> Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a PCI device supports neither function-level reset, nor slot
>>>> or bus reset then refuse to probe it. A line is printed to inform
>>>> the user.
>>>
>>> But that's not what this does, this requires that the device is on a
>>> reset-able bus. This is a massive regression. With this we could no
>>> longer assign devices on the root complex or any device which doesn't
>>> return from bus reset and currently makes use of the NO_BUS_RESET flag
>>> and works happily otherwise. Full NAK. Thanks,
>>
>> Looks like I missed the slot reset check. So how about this:
>>
>> if (pci_probe_reset_slot(pdev->slot) && pci_probe_reset_bus(pdev->bus)) {
>> dev_warn(...);
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>>
>> Or am I still missing something here?
>
> We don't require that a device is on a reset-able bus/slot, so any
> attempt to impose that requirement means that there are devices that
> might work perfectly fine that are now excluded from assignment. The
> entire premise is unacceptable. Thanks,


You previously rejected the idea to silently ignore bus reset requests
on buses that do not support it.

So this leaves us with two options:

1) Do nothing, and crash the kernel on systems with bad combinations of
PCIe target devices and cn88xx when vfio_pci is used.

2) Do something else.

We are trying to figure out what that something else should be. The
general concept we are working on is that if vfio_pci wants to reset a
device, *and* bus reset is the only option available, *and* cn88xx, then
make vfio_pci fail.

What is your opinion of doing that (assuming it is properly implemented)?

Thanks,
David Daney

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-18 17:58    [W:0.052 / U:3.572 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site