mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: Ankit Agrawal <ankita@nvidia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@nvidia.com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <skolothumtho@nvidia.com>,
	Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@intel.com>,
	Yunxiang Li <Yunxiang.Li@amd.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Farrah Chen <farrah.chen@intel.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: Disable qword access to the PCI ROM bar
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:07:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251217150755.10d88a04.alex@shazbot.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251212020941.338355-1-kevin.tian@intel.com>

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 02:09:41 +0000
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:

> Commit 2b938e3db335 ("vfio/pci: Enable iowrite64 and ioread64 for vfio
> pci") enables qword access to the PCI bar resources. However certain
> devices (e.g. Intel X710) are observed with problem upon qword accesses
> to the rom bar, e.g. triggering PCI aer errors.
> 
> Instead of trying to identify all broken devices, universally disable
> qword access to the rom bar i.e. going back to the old way which worked
> reliably for years.

Thanks for finding the root cause of this, Kevin.  I think it would add
useful context in the commit log here to describe that the ROM is
somewhat unique in this respect because it's cached by QEMU which
simply does a pread() of the remaining size until it gets the full
contents.  The other BARs would only perform operations at the same
access width as their guest drivers.

> Reported-by: Farrah Chen <farrah.chen@intel.com>
> Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220740
> Fixes: 2b938e3db335 ("vfio/pci: Enable iowrite64 and ioread64 for vfio pci")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/nvgrace-gpu/main.c |  4 ++--
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c    | 19 +++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h       |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/nvgrace-gpu/main.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/nvgrace-gpu/main.c
> index e346392b72f6..9b39184f76b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/nvgrace-gpu/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/nvgrace-gpu/main.c
> @@ -491,7 +491,7 @@ nvgrace_gpu_map_and_read(struct nvgrace_gpu_pci_core_device *nvdev,
>  		ret = vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(&nvdev->core_device, false,
>  					     nvdev->resmem.ioaddr,
>  					     buf, offset, mem_count,
> -					     0, 0, false);
> +					     0, 0, false, true);
>  	}
>  
>  	return ret;
> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ nvgrace_gpu_map_and_write(struct nvgrace_gpu_pci_core_device *nvdev,
>  		ret = vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(&nvdev->core_device, false,
>  					     nvdev->resmem.ioaddr,
>  					     (char __user *)buf, pos, mem_count,
> -					     0, 0, true);
> +					     0, 0, true, true);
>  	}
>  
>  	return ret;
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
> index 6192788c8ba3..95dc7e04cb08 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ VFIO_IORDWR(64)
>  ssize_t vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool test_mem,
>  			       void __iomem *io, char __user *buf,
>  			       loff_t off, size_t count, size_t x_start,
> -			       size_t x_end, bool iswrite)
> +			       size_t x_end, bool iswrite, bool allow_qword)

I've been trying to think about how we avoid yet another bool arg here.
What do you think about creating an enum:

enum vfio_pci_io_width {
	VFIO_PCI_IO_WIDTH_1 = 1,
	VFIO_PCI_IO_WIDTH_2 = 2,
	VFIO_PCI_IO_WIDTH_4 = 4,
	VFIO_PCI_IO_WIDTH_8 = 8,
};

The arg here would then be enum vfio_pci_io_width max_width, and for
each test we'd add a condition && max_width >= 8 (4, 2), where we can
assume byte access as the minimum regardless of the arg.  It's a little
more than we need, but it follows a simple pattern and I think makes
the call sites a bit more intuitive.

>  {
>  	ssize_t done = 0;
>  	int ret;
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ ssize_t vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool test_mem,
>  		else
>  			fillable = 0;
>  
> -		if (fillable >= 8 && !(off % 8)) {
> +		if (allow_qword && fillable >= 8 && !(off % 8)) {
>  			ret = vfio_pci_iordwr64(vdev, iswrite, test_mem,
>  						io, buf, off, &filled);
>  			if (ret)
> @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ ssize_t vfio_pci_bar_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, char __user *buf,
>  	void __iomem *io;
>  	struct resource *res = &vdev->pdev->resource[bar];
>  	ssize_t done;
> +	bool allow_qword = true;
>  
>  	if (pci_resource_start(pdev, bar))
>  		end = pci_resource_len(pdev, bar);
> @@ -262,6 +263,16 @@ ssize_t vfio_pci_bar_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, char __user *buf,
>  		if (!io)
>  			return -ENOMEM;
>  		x_end = end;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Certain devices (e.g. Intel X710) don't support qword
> +		 * access to the ROM bar. Otherwise PCI AER errors might be
> +		 * triggered.
> +		 *
> +		 * Disable qword access to the ROM bar universally, which
> +		 * worked reliably for years before qword access is enabled.
> +		 */
> +		allow_qword = false;
>  	} else {
>  		int ret = vfio_pci_core_setup_barmap(vdev, bar);
>  		if (ret) {
> @@ -278,7 +289,7 @@ ssize_t vfio_pci_bar_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, char __user *buf,
>  	}
>  
>  	done = vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(vdev, res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM, io, buf, pos,
> -				      count, x_start, x_end, iswrite);
> +				      count, x_start, x_end, iswrite, allow_qword);
>  
>  	if (done >= 0)
>  		*ppos += done;
> @@ -352,7 +363,7 @@ ssize_t vfio_pci_vga_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, char __user *buf,
>  	 * to the memory enable bit in the command register.
>  	 */
>  	done = vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(vdev, false, iomem, buf, off, count,
> -				      0, 0, iswrite);
> +				      0, 0, iswrite, true);

I have no basis other than paranoia and "VGA is old and a 64-bit access
to it seem wrong", but I'm tempted to restrict this to dword access as
well.  I don't want to take your fix off track from it's specific goal
though.  Thanks,

Alex

>  
>  	vga_put(vdev->pdev, rsrc);
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h b/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h
> index f541044e42a2..3a75b76eaed3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h
> +++ b/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ pci_ers_result_t vfio_pci_core_aer_err_detected(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>  ssize_t vfio_pci_core_do_io_rw(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool test_mem,
>  			       void __iomem *io, char __user *buf,
>  			       loff_t off, size_t count, size_t x_start,
> -			       size_t x_end, bool iswrite);
> +			       size_t x_end, bool iswrite, bool allow_qword);
>  bool vfio_pci_core_range_intersect_range(loff_t buf_start, size_t buf_cnt,
>  					 loff_t reg_start, size_t reg_cnt,
>  					 loff_t *buf_offset,


  reply	other threads:[~2025-12-17 22:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-12  2:09 Kevin Tian
2025-12-17 22:07 ` Alex Williamson [this message]
2025-12-18  6:35   ` Tian, Kevin

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=20251217150755.10d88a04.alex@shazbot.org \
    --to=alex@shazbot.org \
    --cc=Yunxiang.Li@amd.com \
    --cc=ankita@nvidia.com \
    --cc=farrah.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ramesh.thomas@intel.com \
    --cc=skolothumtho@nvidia.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yishaih@nvidia.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®