[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53D64AF3.4080202@citrix.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:06:59 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
CC: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] xen/pciback: Don't deadlock when unbinding.
On 14/07/14 17:18, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> As commit 0a9fd0152929db372ff61b0d6c280fdd34ae8bdb
> 'xen/pciback: Document the entry points for 'pcistub_put_pci_dev''
> explained there are four entry points in this function.
> Two of them are when the user fiddles in the SysFS to
> unbind a device which might be in use by a guest or not.
>
> Both 'unbind' states will cause a deadlock as the the PCI lock has
> already been taken, which then pci_device_reset tries to take.
>
> We can simplify this by requiring that all callers of
> pcistub_put_pci_dev MUST hold the device lock. And then
> we can just call the lockless version of pci_device_reset.
>
> To make it even simpler we will modify xen_pcibk_release_pci_dev
> to quality whether it should take a lock or not - as it ends
> up calling xen_pcibk_release_pci_dev and needs to hold the lock.
>
> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
This deadlock is for a rather specific and uncommon use case (manually
unbinding a PCI while it is passed-through). Is this critical enough to
warrant a stable backport?
> Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
David
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists