On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 10:24:07PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 10:01:50PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 01:20:57PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > Since commit 7b42d97e99d3 ("PCI/ERR: Always report current recovery
> > > status for udev") AER uses the result of error_detected() as parameter
> > > to pci_uevent_ers(). As pci_uevent_ers() however does not handle
> > > PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET this results in a missing uevent for the
> > > beginning of recovery if drivers request a reset. Fix this by treating
> > > PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET as beginning recovery.
> > [...]
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> > > @@ -1592,6 +1592,7 @@ void pci_uevent_ers(struct pci_dev *pdev, enum
> > > pci_ers_result err_type)
> > > switch (err_type) {
> > > case PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE:
> > > case PCI_ERS_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER:
> > > + case PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET:
> > > envp[idx++] = "ERROR_EVENT=BEGIN_RECOVERY";
> > > envp[idx++] = "DEVICE_ONLINE=0";
> > > break;
> >
> > I note that PCI_ERS_RESULT_NO_AER_DRIVER is also missing in that
> > switch/case statement. I guess for the patch to be complete,
> > it needs to be added to the PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT case.
> > Do you agree?
>
> I realize now there's a bigger problem here: In pcie_do_recovery(),
> when control reaches the "failed:" label, a uevent is only signaled
> for the *bridge*. Shouldn't a uevent instead be signaled for every
> device *below* the bridge? (And possibly the bridge itself if it was
> the device reporting the error.)
The small patch below should resolve this issue.
Please let me know what you think.
> In that case you don't need to add PCI_ERS_RESULT_NO_AER_DRIVER to
> the switch/case statement because we wouldn't want to have multiple
> uevents reporting disconnect, so the one emitted below the "failed:"
> label would be sufficient.
I'll send a separate Reviewed-by for your original patch as the small
patch below should resolve my concern about PCI_ERS_RESULT_NO_AER_DRIVER.
> This all looks so broken that I'm starting to wonder if there's any
> user space application at all that takes advantage of these uevents?
I'd still be interested to know which user space application you're
using to track these uevents?
Thanks,
Lukas
-- >8 --
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
index e795e5ae..3a95aa2 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
@@ -165,6 +165,12 @@ static int report_resume(struct pci_dev *dev, void *data)
return 0;
}
+static int report_disconnect(struct pci_dev *dev, void *data)
+{
+ pci_uevent_ers(dev, PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT);
+ return 0;
+}
+
/**
* pci_walk_bridge - walk bridges potentially AER affected
* @bridge: bridge which may be a Port, an RCEC, or an RCiEP
@@ -272,7 +278,7 @@ pci_ers_result_t pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev,
failed:
pci_walk_bridge(bridge, pci_pm_runtime_put, NULL);
- pci_uevent_ers(bridge, PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT);
+ pci_walk_bridge(bridge, report_disconnect, NULL);
pci_info(bridge, "device recovery failed\n");
