From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753968Ab1GNIQj (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:16:39 -0400 Received: from sous-sol.org ([216.99.217.87]:59508 "EHLO sequoia.sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752882Ab1GNIQg (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:16:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:16:19 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Jesse Barnes Cc: Chris Wright , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Don Dutile Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] pci: ARI is a PCIe v2 feature Message-ID: <20110714081619.GB15844@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <20110713171433.GU15844@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110714153533.7f310cdf@jbarnes-e6510> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110714153533.7f310cdf@jbarnes-e6510> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jesse Barnes (jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org) wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:14:33 -0700 > Chris Wright wrote: > > > The function pci_enable_ari() may mistakenly set the downstream port > > of a v1 PCIe switch in ARI Forwarding mode. This is a PCIe v2 > > feature, and with an SR-IOV device on that switch port believing the > > switch above is ARI capable it may attempt to use functions 8-255, > > translating into invalid (non-zero) device numbers for that bus. > > This has been seen to cause Completion Timeouts and general > > misbehaviour including hangs and panics. > > Thanks Chris, your earlier one is still sitting in my queue, but I > wasn't going to send it for 3.0 as it didn't seem that critical. Do > you think it is? If so you can send it directly to Linus with my ack > as I don't have anything else queued, or just wait until the merge > window when it will be put into the stable tree as well. Cool, just wanted to make sure it wasn't lost. I think it's fine to merge in next window and let it filter back to -stable. While I've seen it cause panics, it's not a regression and the conditions required are very specific (possibly including buggy BIOS). thanks, -chris