On 2024-09-23 17:10:36 -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>
> On 9/23/2024 4:11 PM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/23/2024 2:22 PM, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> >> Commit 004d25060c78 ("igb: Fix igb_down hung on surprise removal")
> >> changed igb_io_error_detected() to ignore non-fatal pcie errors in order
> >> to avoid hung task that can happen when igb_down() is called multiple
> >> times. This caused an issue when processing transient non-fatal errors.
> >> igb_io_resume(), which is called after igb_io_error_detected(), assumes
> >> that device is brought down by igb_io_error_detected() if the interface
> >> is up. This resulted in panic with stacktrace below.
> >>
> >> [ T3256] igb 0000:09:00.0 haeth0: igb: haeth0 NIC Link is Down
> >> [ T292] pcieport 0000:00:1c.5: AER: Uncorrected (Non-Fatal) error
> >> received: 0000:09:00.0
> >> [ T292] igb 0000:09:00.0: PCIe Bus Error: severity=Uncorrected
> >> (Non-Fatal), type=Transaction Layer, (Requester ID)
> >> [ T292] igb 0000:09:00.0: device [8086:1537] error
> >> status/mask=00004000/00000000
> >> [ T292] igb 0000:09:00.0: [14] CmpltTO [ 200.105524,009][ T292] igb
> >> 0000:09:00.0: AER: TLP Header: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> >> [ T292] pcieport 0000:00:1c.5: AER: broadcast error_detected message
> >> [ T292] igb 0000:09:00.0: Non-correctable non-fatal error reported.
> >> [ T292] pcieport 0000:00:1c.5: AER: broadcast mmio_enabled message
> >> [ T292] pcieport 0000:00:1c.5: AER: broadcast resume message
> >> [ T292] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ T292] kernel BUG at net/core/dev.c:6539!
> >> [ T292] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> >> [ T292] RIP: 0010:napi_enable+0x37/0x40
> >> [ T292] Call Trace:
> >> [ T292] <TASK>
> >> [ T292] ? die+0x33/0x90
> >> [ T292] ? do_trap+0xdc/0x110
> >> [ T292] ? napi_enable+0x37/0x40
> >> [ T292] ? do_error_trap+0x70/0xb0
> >> [ T292] ? napi_enable+0x37/0x40
> >> [ T292] ? napi_enable+0x37/0x40
> >> [ T292] ? exc_invalid_op+0x4e/0x70
> >> [ T292] ? napi_enable+0x37/0x40
> >> [ T292] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
> >> [ T292] ? napi_enable+0x37/0x40
> >> [ T292] igb_up+0x41/0x150
> >> [ T292] igb_io_resume+0x25/0x70
> >> [ T292] report_resume+0x54/0x70
> >> [ T292] ? report_frozen_detected+0x20/0x20
> >> [ T292] pci_walk_bus+0x6c/0x90
> >> [ T292] ? aer_print_port_info+0xa0/0xa0
> >> [ T292] pcie_do_recovery+0x22f/0x380
> >> [ T292] aer_process_err_devices+0x110/0x160
> >> [ T292] aer_isr+0x1c1/0x1e0
> >> [ T292] ? disable_irq_nosync+0x10/0x10
> >> [ T292] irq_thread_fn+0x1a/0x60
> >> [ T292] irq_thread+0xe3/0x1a0
> >> [ T292] ? irq_set_affinity_notifier+0x120/0x120
> >> [ T292] ? irq_affinity_notify+0x100/0x100
> >> [ T292] kthread+0xe2/0x110
> >> [ T292] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
> >> [ T292] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50
> >> [ T292] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
> >> [ T292] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
> >> [ T292] </TASK>
> >>
> >> To fix this issue igb_io_resume() checks if the interface is running and
> >> the device is not down this means igb_io_error_detected() did not bring
> >> the device down and there is no need to bring it up.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfe...@purestorage.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Yuanyuan Zhong<yzh...@purestorage.com>
> >> Fixes: 004d25060c78 ("igb: Fix igb_down hung on surprise removal")
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 4 ++++
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> >> index 1ef4cb871452..8c6bc3db9a3d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> >> @@ -9651,6 +9651,10 @@ static void igb_io_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >> struct igb_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
> >>
> >> if (netif_running(netdev)) {
> >> + if (!test_bit(__IGB_DOWN, &adapter->state)) {
> >> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Resuming from non-fatal error, do
> >> nothing.\n");
> >> + return;
> >
> > I'm not sure this needs to be a dev_info.
> >
>
> I was thinking dev_dbg, because I don't really see why its relevant to
> inform the user we did nothing. Seems like its log spam to me.
Good point. I changed it to dev_dbg() in v2.
v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240924210604.123175-1-mkhalfe...@purestorage.com/
>
> > Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>
> >
>
