linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] PCI/IOV: simplify code by hotplug safe pci_get_domain_bus_and

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:02:54 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] PCI/IOV: simplify code by hotplug safe pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot()

On 09/21/2012 07:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Following code has a race window between pci_find_bus() and pci_get_slot()
>>> if PCI hotplug operation happens between them which removes the pci_bus.
>>> So use PCI hotplug safe interface pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() instead,
>>> which also reduces code complexity.
>>>
>>> struct pci_bus *pci_bus = pci_find_bus(domain, busno);
>>> struct pci_dev *pci_dev = pci_get_slot(pci_bus, devfn);
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/pci/iov.c |    8 ++------
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>> index aeccc91..b0fe771 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>> @@ -152,15 +152,11 @@ failed1:
>>>  static void virtfn_remove(struct pci_dev *dev, int id, int reset)
>>>  {
>>>         char buf[VIRTFN_ID_LEN];
>>> -       struct pci_bus *bus;
>>>         struct pci_dev *virtfn;
>>>         struct pci_sriov *iov = dev->sriov;
>>>
>>> -       bus = pci_find_bus(pci_domain_nr(dev->bus), virtfn_bus(dev, id));
>>> -       if (!bus)
>>> -               return;
>>> -
>>> -       virtfn = pci_get_slot(bus, virtfn_devfn(dev, id));
>>> +       virtfn = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(pci_domain_nr(dev->bus),
>>> +                       virtfn_bus(dev, id), virtfn_devfn(dev, id));
>>>         if (!virtfn)
>>>                 return;
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This one cause IOV regression, when remove bridge with pci devices under that.
>>
>> in that case, VFs  are stopped before PF, so they are not in device
>> tree anymore.
>> so pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot will not find those VFs.
>>
>> So the reference to PF is not released. Also vit_bus may not be released too.
>>
>> So you have to rework
>>     pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot to make it work on pci devices get stopped only.
>>
>> or just drop this from the tree.
> 
> pci_find_bus() is a broken interface (because there's no reference
> counting or safety with respect to hot-plug), and if the design
> depends on it, that means the design is broken, too.  I don't think
> reworking pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() is the right answer.
> 
> It's not clear to me why we need the split between stopping and
> removing devices.  That split leads to these zombie devices that have
> been stopped and are no longer findable by bus_find_device() (which is
> used by pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot()), but still "exist" in some
> fashion until they're removed.  It's unreasonable for random PCI and
> driver code to have to worry about that zombie state.
> 
> I'll revert this patch for now to fix the regression.  Of course, that
> means we will still have the old problem of using the unsafe
> pci_find_bus().
Hi Bjorn,
	I'm working on to enhance unsafe calling of pci_find_bus().
	--Gerry

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/