> On Sep 15, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > In addition to the (PCI_SLOT() != devfn) issue, I'm concerned about > topologies like we see on Skylake. IIRC, the integrated NIC appears at > something like 00:1f.6. I don't know if that specific NIC has VPD, nor > am I sure it really matter because another example or some future > version might. So we'll set the PCI_DEV_FLAGS_VPD_REF_F0 because we do > so for all (PCI_FUNC() != 0) Intel NICs, we'll call > pci_vpd_f0_dev_check(), which will error because function 0 has a > different class code and device ID, so we return error and if VPD exists > on the device, it's now inaccessible.
Yes, that is exactly what would happen. > I thought there was talk about whitelisting anything on the root bus to > avoid strange root complex integrated devices (and perhaps avoid the > general case for assigned devices within a VM), but I don't see anything > like that here. I hadn't heard that talk, but I'm not on the PCI list and I guess I wasn't copied. > Perhaps instead of failing and hiding VPD we should fail, clear the > flag, and allow normal access. Thanks, Because the purpose of VPD is to hold information about the device, I would suggest that VPD should never be provided for an embedded network device, but rather for the device as a whole. So while there may well be VPD for an SOC, that VPD should not be associated with one of its embedded devices, but rather something more appropriate for the device as a whole. And attaching VPD to a whole bunch of internal devices would just be madness. So I understand the concern, but I don't think that it should really happen in real systems. I did think about this case when I was working on the patches. A networking device should really only have VPD when it is its own physical device, such as a NIC. -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
