[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16dc573e5a9add534153b1236d3665b035b8d581.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:03:49 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hari Vyas <hari.vyas@...adcom.com>, Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>,
Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@...ray.eu>,
Pierre-Yves Kerbrat <pkerbrat@...ray.eu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] pci: Rework is_added race fix and address
bridge enable races
On Fri, 2018-08-17 at 14:48 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> The second part aims at fixing the enable/disable/set_master races,
> and does so by providing a framework for future device state locking
> issues.
>
> It introduces a pci_dev->state_mutex which is used at a lower level
> than the device_lock (the device lock isn't suitable, as explained
> in the cset comments) and uses it to protect enablement and set_master.
As discussed in the series, I'm not using the device_lock because I
don't like it creeping out of drivers/base too much unless you
explicitly try to lock against concurrent add/remove.
That being said, if we decided we prefer using it to solve the
enable/disable race, then we have to be careful of a few things:
- Driver callbacks hold it, so we can't take it from within
pci_enable_device(), pci_set_master() etc... themselves. We'll have to
assume the caller has it
- The above means auditing callers of these various APIs that might be
calling them from outside of a driver callback and add the necessary
lock
- We need to take great care about the possibility of the parent
device(s) lock being held. It can happen for USB for example. Now we
don't have USB->PCI adapters that I know of that uses the PCI stack in
Linux but generally assuming your parent lock isn't held is risky. So I
would be a bit weary of walking up the bridge chain and taking it
unconditionally.
Alternatively, we could hijack an existing global lock, for example
mvoe the bridge_mutex outside of ACPI and use it for the upwards bridge
walk, and ignore the other possible races with enable/disable.
Cheers,
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists