[PATCH arm/aspeed/ast2500 v2] ipmi: add an Aspeed KCS IPMI BMC driver
Corey Minyard
minyard at acm.org
Wed Jan 31 11:52:37 AEDT 2018
On 01/30/2018 06:02 PM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-01-30 21:49, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> On 01/29/2018 07:57 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-01-26 22:48, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>> On 01/26/2018 12:08 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-01-25 01:48, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/24/2018 10:06 AM, Haiyue Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> The KCS (Keyboard Controller Style) interface is used to perform
>>>>>>> in-band
>>>>>>> IPMI communication between a server host and its BMC (BaseBoard
>>>>>>> Management
>>>>>>> Controllers).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This driver exposes the KCS interface on ASpeed SOCs (AST2400
>>>>>>> and AST2500)
>>>>>>> as a character device. Such SOCs are commonly used as BMCs and
>>>>>>> this driver
>>>>>>> implements the BMC side of the KCS interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> v1->v2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Divide the driver into two parts, one handles the BMC KCS IPMI
>>>>>>> 2.0 state;
>>>>>>> the other handles the BMC KCS controller such as AST2500 IO
>>>>>>> accessing.
>>>>>>> - Use the spin lock APIs to handle the device file operations
>>>>>>> and BMC chip
>>>>>>> IRQ inferface for accessing the same KCS BMC data structure.
>>>>>>> - Enhanced the phases handling of the KCS BMC.
>>>>>>> - Unified the IOCTL definition for IPMI BMC, it will be used by
>>>>>>> KCS and BT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + u8 data;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
>>>>>>> + case KCS_PHASE_WRITE:
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, WRITE_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* set OBF before reading data */
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ)
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in[kcs_bmc->data_in_idx++] =
>>>>>>> + read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>
>>>> I missed this earlier, you need to issue a length error if the data
>>>> is too large.
>>>>
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_END:
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, READ_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ)
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in[kcs_bmc->data_in_idx++] =
>>>>>>> + read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WAIT_READ;
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->running) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you only do this when running is set? It won't hurt
>>>>>> anything if it's not
>>>>>> set. As it is, you have a race if something opens the device
>>>>>> while this code
>>>>>> runs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, don't set the state to wait read until the "write" has
>>>>>> finished (userland has
>>>>>> read the data out of the buffer. More on that later.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Understood.
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_avail = true;
>>>>>>> + wake_up_interruptible(&kcs_bmc->queue);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_PHASE_READ:
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->data_out_idx == kcs_bmc->data_out_len)
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, IDLE_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + data = read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> + if (data != KCS_CMD_READ_BYTE) {
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, ERROR_STATE);
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->data_out_idx == kcs_bmc->data_out_len) {
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_IDLE;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc,
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_out[kcs_bmc->data_out_idx++]);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_PHASE_ABORT_ERROR1:
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, READ_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Read the Dummy byte */
>>>>>>> + read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, kcs_bmc->error);
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_ABORT_ERROR2;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_PHASE_ABORT_ERROR2:
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, IDLE_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Read the Dummy byte */
>>>>>>> + read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_IDLE;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + default:
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, ERROR_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Read the Dummy byte */
>>>>>>> + read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static void kcs_bmc_handle_command(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + u8 cmd;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, WRITE_STATE);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Dummy data to generate OBF */
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + cmd = read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't you check the phase in all the cases below and do error
>>>>>> handling if the phase isn't correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similar thing if the device here isn't open. You need to handle
>>>>>> that gracefully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, you should remove data_in_avail and data_in_idx setting from
>>>>>> here, for reasons I will explain later.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If host software sends the data twice such as a retry before the
>>>>> BMC's IPMI service starts,
>>>>> then the two IPMI requests will be merged into one, if not clear
>>>>> data_in_idx after receving
>>>>> KCS_CMD_WRITE_START. Most of the states are driven by host
>>>>> software (SMS). :(
>>>>
>>>> True, but what if the host issues WRITE_START or a WRITE_END while
>>>> this driver is in read
>>>> state? The spec is unclear on this, but it really only makes sense
>>>> for the host to issue
>>>> WRITE_START in idle stat and WRITE_END in write state. IMHO it
>>>> should go to error
>>>> state. You might make the case that a WRITE_START anywhere
>>>> restarts the transaction,
>>>> but the feel of the error state machine kind of goes against that.
>>>> WRITE_END is definitely
>>>> wrong anywhere but write state.
>>>>
>>>> I just found the following in the spec (section 9.12):
>>>>
>>>> Thus, since the interface will allow a command transfer to be
>>>> started or restarted
>>>> at any time when the input buffer is empty, software could elect to
>>>> simply retry
>>>> the command upon detecting an error condition, or issue a ‘known
>>>> good’
>>>> command in order to clear ERROR_STATE
>>>>
>>>> So a WRITE_START anywhere is ok. A WRITE_END in the wrong state
>>>> should probably
>>>> still go to error state. This means the user needs to be able to
>>>> handle a write error at
>>>> any time. It also means it's very important to make sure the user
>>>> does a read before
>>>> doing a write. If the host re-issues a WRITE_START and writes a
>>>> new command
>>>> between the time the use reads the data and writes the response,
>>>> the response would
>>>> be for the wrong command.
>>>>
>>>>>>> + switch (cmd) {
>>>>>>> + case KCS_CMD_WRITE_START:
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_avail = false;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_idx = 0;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->error = KCS_NO_ERROR;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_CMD_WRITE_END:
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_END;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_CMD_ABORT:
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->error == KCS_NO_ERROR)
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->error = KCS_ABORTED_BY_COMMAND;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_ABORT_ERROR1;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + default:
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->error = KCS_ILLEGAL_CONTROL_CODE;
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, ERROR_STATE);
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, kcs_bmc->error);
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_ERROR;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +int kcs_bmc_handle_event(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>>>> + u8 status;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&kcs_bmc->lock, flags);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + status = read_status(kcs_bmc) & (KCS_STATUS_IBF |
>>>>>>> KCS_STATUS_CMD_DAT);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + switch (status) {
>>>>>>> + case KCS_STATUS_IBF | KCS_STATUS_CMD_DAT:
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc_handle_command(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case KCS_STATUS_IBF:
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc_handle_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + default:
>>>>>>> + ret = -1;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kcs_bmc->lock, flags);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kcs_bmc_handle_event);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static inline struct kcs_bmc *file_kcs_bmc(struct file *filp)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + return container_of(filp->private_data, struct kcs_bmc,
>>>>>>> miscdev);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int kcs_bmc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (!kcs_bmc->running) {
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->running = 1;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_IDLE;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_avail = false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do everything right, setting the phase and data_in_avail
>>>>>> should not
>>>>>> be necessary here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static unsigned int kcs_bmc_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table
>>>>>>> *wait)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>>>>> + unsigned int mask = 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + poll_wait(filp, &kcs_bmc->queue, wait);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->data_in_avail)
>>>>>>> + mask |= POLLIN;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return mask;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static ssize_t kcs_bmc_read(struct file *filp, char *buf,
>>>>>>> + size_t count, loff_t *offset)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>>>>> + ssize_t ret = -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This function still has some issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't call copy_to_user() with a spinlock held or interrupts
>>>>>> disabled.
>>>>>> To handle readers, you probably need a separate mutex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, this function can return -EAGAIN even if O_NONBLOCK is not
>>>>>> set if
>>>>>> kcs_bmc->data_in_avail changes between when you wait on the event
>>>>>> and when you check it under the lock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also clear data_in_avail even if the copy_to_user() fails,
>>>>>> which is
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the best way to handle this would be to have the spinlock
>>>>>> protect the inner workings of the state machine and a mutex handle
>>>>>> copying data out, setting/clearing the running flag (thus a mutex
>>>>>> instead of spinlock in open and release) and the ioctl settings
>>>>>> (except
>>>>>> for abort where you will need to grab the spinlock).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the wait event below, grab the mutex. If data is not
>>>>>> available
>>>>>> and O_NONBLOCK is not set, drop the mutex and retry. Otherwise
>>>>>> this is the only place (besides release) that sets data_in_avail
>>>>>> to false.
>>>>>> Do the copy_to_user(), grab the spinlock, clear data_in_avail and
>>>>>> data_in_idx, then release the lock and mutex. If you are really
>>>>>> adventurous you can do this without grabbing the lock using
>>>>>> barriers, but it's probably not necessary here.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the state machine being able to be restarted at any time, you
>>>> need
>>>> something a little different here. You still need the mutex to handle
>>>> multiple readers and the copy. I think the function should be
>>>> something
>>>> like:
>>>>
>>> Since KCS is not a multi-reader protocol from BMC's view, you makes
>>> things complex. :-)
>>
>> No, I don't think you understand. The primary purpose of the complexity
>> here is to protect the driver from the host system (on the other side of
>> the KCS interface). Without this protection, it is possible for the
>> host
>> system to start a new write while the user on the BMC side is reading
>> data out, resulting in corrupt data being read.
>>
>> I haven't thought too much about this. There may be a simpler way,
>> but the protection needs to be there.
>>
>> And you may not think you need to protect the driver against a
>> malicious BMC side user code, but you would be wrong. You can
>> only have one opener, but with threads or a fork you can have
>> multiple readers. And you don't know if a malicious piece of
>> code has taken over userland. You always need to protect the
>> kernel.
>>
> Sure, the read/write have protected the critical data area with IRQ,
> and also, these
> functions should be thread local safe I believe.
>
> spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
> ...
> spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>
But remember, you can't call copy_to_user() when IRQs are off or when
you are holding
a spinlock. That is an absolute no. It can crash the kernel.
So you need a design that takes this into account, but will not result
in the possibility
of bad data being read.
>>>> static ssize_t kcs_bmc_read(struct file *filp, char *buf,
>>>> size_t count, loff_t *offset)
>>>> {
>>>> struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>> ssize_t ret;
>>>> bool avail;
>>>> size_t data_size;
>>>> u8 *data;
>>>>
>>>> data = kmalloc(KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> if (!data)
>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>>
>>>> retry:
>>>> ret = -EAGAIN;
>>>> if (!(filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK))
>>>> wait_event_interruptible(kcs_bmc->queue,
>>>> kcs_bmc->data_in_avail);
>>>>
>>>> mutex_lock(&kcs_bmc->read_mutex);
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>> avail = kcs_bmc->data_in_avail;
>>>> if (avail) {
>>>> memcpy(data, kcs_bmc->data_in, kcs_bmc->data_in_idx);
>>>> data_size = kcs_bmc->data_in_idx;
>>>> }
>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>
>>>> if (!avail) {
>>>> if (filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
>>>> goto out_mutex_unlock;
>>>> mutex_unlock(&kcs_bmc->read_mutex);
>>>> goto retry;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (count < data_size) {
>>>> ret = -EOVERFLOW;
>>>> ? I'm not sure about the error, but userspace needs to
>>>> know.
>>>> goto out_mutex_unlock;
>>
>> Maybe a length error to the host side here?
You didn't comment on this or the other length error. That needs to be
handled.
>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (!copy_to_user(buf, data, data_size)) {
>>>> ret = -EFAULT;
>>>> goto out_mutex_unlock;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> ret = data_size;
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>
>>>> if (kcs_bmc->phase != KCS_PHASE_WRITE_END_DONE)
>>>> /* Something aborted or restarted the state machine. */
>>>> ? Maybe restart if O_NONBLOCK is not set and -EAGAIN if
>>>> it is?
>>>> ret = -EIO;
>>>> } else {
>>>> kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WAIT_READ;
>>>> kcs_bmc->data_in_avail = false;
>>>> kcs_bmc->data_in_idx = 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>
>>>> out_mutex_unlock:
>>>> mutex_unlock(&kcs_bmc->read_mutex);
>>>>
>>>> kfree(data);
>>>>
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> Note that I added a state, KCS_PHASE_WRITE_END_DONE, which would be
>>>> set after the final byte from the host is received. You want the
>>>> read here
>>>> done before you can do the write below to avoid the race I talked
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> There is a local copy made of the data. What you *never* want to
>>>> happen
>>>> here is for the state machine to start processing a new write command
>>>> while the data is being copied. It could result in corrupt data
>>>> being read
>>>> and some random operation being done by the BMC.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to avoid the local copy, it could be done, but it's
>>>> more complex.
>>>>
>>>>>>> + if (!(filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK))
>>>>>>> + wait_event_interruptible(kcs_bmc->queue,
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_avail);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->data_in_avail) {
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_avail = false;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (count > kcs_bmc->data_in_idx)
>>>>>>> + count = kcs_bmc->data_in_idx;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (!copy_to_user(buf, kcs_bmc->data_in, count))
>>>>>>> + ret = count;
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + ret = -EFAULT;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static ssize_t kcs_bmc_write(struct file *filp, const char *buf,
>>>>>>> + size_t count, loff_t *offset)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>>>>> + ssize_t ret = count;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (count < 1 || count > KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ)
>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (kcs_bmc->phase == KCS_PHASE_WAIT_READ) {
>>>>>>> + if (copy_from_user(kcs_bmc->data_out, buf, count)) {
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_READ;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_out_idx = 1;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_out_len = count;
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, kcs_bmc->data_out[0]);
>>>>>>> + } else if (kcs_bmc->phase == KCS_PHASE_READ) {
>>>>>>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a reason you return -EINVAL here? Why not just -EBUSY
>>>>>> in all
>>>>>> cases? Is there something that userland will need to do
>>>>>> differently?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static long kcs_bmc_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
>>>>>>> + unsigned long arg)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>>>>> + long ret = 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + switch (cmd) {
>>>>>>> + case IPMI_BMC_IOCTL_SET_SMS_ATN:
>>>>>>> + update_status_bits(kcs_bmc, KCS_STATUS_SMS_ATN,
>>>>>>> + KCS_STATUS_SMS_ATN);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case IPMI_BMC_IOCTL_CLEAR_SMS_ATN:
>>>>>>> + update_status_bits(kcs_bmc, KCS_STATUS_SMS_ATN,
>>>>>>> + 0);
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + case IPMI_BMC_IOCTL_FORCE_ABORT:
>>>>>>> + set_state(kcs_bmc, ERROR_STATE);
>>>>>>> + read_data(kcs_bmc);
>>>>>>> + write_data(kcs_bmc, KCS_ZERO_DATA);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_ERROR;
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in_avail = false;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + default:
>>>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int kcs_bmc_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc = file_kcs_bmc(filp);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What happens if the device gets closed in the middle of a
>>>>>> transaction? That's
>>>>>> an important case to handle. If something is in process, you
>>>>>> need to abort it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The device just provides the read & write data, the transaction is
>>>>> handled in the KCS
>>>>> controller's IRQ handler.
>>>>
>>>> From the spec, section 9.14:
>>>>
>>>> The BMC must change the status to ERROR_STATE on any condition
>>>> where it
>>>> aborts a command transfer in progress.
>>>>
>>>> So you need to do something here.
>>>>
>>> In practice, we do this as spec said in ipmid, NOT in driver, driver
>>> can't handle anything, let's
>>> make it simple, thanks!
>>
>> If ipmid crashes or is killed, how does it accomplish this?
>>
> Every time ipmids (or kcsd) crashed or killed, it needs start to call
> FORCE_ARBORT firstly, to sync with
> host side software.
>>>
>>> Whenever the BMC is reset (from power-on or a hard reset), the State
>>> Bits are initialized to “11 - Error State”. Doing so
>>> allows SMS to detect that the BMC has been reset and that any
>>> message in process has been terminated by the BMC.
>>
>> Right, that's fine, like it should be. But we are not talking about
>> a reset.
>>
> I think the final error handling solution is that kcsd (user land)
> runs, otherwise, the host software side still got stuck. We meet
> this kind of issue, so in general, we just doesn't handle some mirror
> errors in driver, then in kcsd, when it can provide the real
> IPMI service, it will reset the channel firstly to sync with host side
> software.
"Userland will do the right thing" is not very convincing to a kernel
developer.
Plus if the above is true, I would think that you would just want to
hold the device
in an error state when it wasn't opened.
-corey
>> -corey
>>
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + kcs_bmc->running = 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&kcs_bmc->lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the openbmc
mailing list