Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1664293
| From | Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls |
| Date | 2017-06-13 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tRGMO-cb-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <tPkdH-7xX-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tPkdH-7xX-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tPkdH-7xX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tPu3p-5KI-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <tPNSq-1Kk-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:29:36PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:14:43PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > So I guess the method here is > > dev->driver->err_handler->reset_notify(), and the PCI core should be > > holding device_lock() while calling it? That makes sense to me; > > thanks a lot for articulating that! > > Yes. > > > 1) The current patch protects the err_handler->reset_notify() uses by > > adding or expanding device_lock regions in the paths that lead to > > pci_reset_notify(). Could we simplify it by doing the locking > > directly in pci_reset_notify()? Then it would be easy to verify the > > locking, and we would be less likely to add new callers without the > > proper locking. > > We could do that, except that I'd rather hold the lock over a longer > period if we have many calls following each other. My main concern is being able to verify the locking. I think that is much easier if the locking is adjacent to the method invocation. But if you just add a comment at the method invocation about where the locking is, that should be sufficient. > I also have > a patch to actually kill pci_reset_notify() later in the series as > well, as the calling convention for it and ->reset_notify() are > awkward - depending on prepare parameter they do two entirely > different things. That being said I could also add new > pci_reset_prepare() and pci_reset_done() helpers. I like your pci_reset_notify() changes; they make that much clearer. I don't think new helpers are necessary. > > 2) Stating the rule explicitly helps look for other problems, and I > > think we have a similar problem in all the pcie_portdrv_err_handler > > methods. > > Yes, I mentioned this earlier, and I also vaguely remember we got > bug reports from IBM on power for this a while ago. I just don't > feel confident enough to touch all these without a good test plan. Hmmm. I see your point, but I hate leaving a known bug unfixed. I wonder if some enterprising soul could tickle this bug by injecting errors while removing and rescanning devices below the bridge? Bjorn
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2017-06-07 20:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2017-06-13 01:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2017-06-13 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset_notify calls Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2017-06-13 16:10 +0200
csiph-web