linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] pci: report surprise removal events

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <aGLB_8SFF1Cw95MZ@kbusch-mbp>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:57:35 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"virtualization@...ts.linux.dev" <virtualization@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"stefanha@...hat.com" <stefanha@...hat.com>,
	"alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com" <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pci: report surprise removal events

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:52:26PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > 
> > But I didn't suggest calling error_detected from report_error_detected.
> > Just call it directly without device_lock. It's not very feasible to enforce a non-
> > blocking callback, though, if speed is really a concern here.
> Yeah, it would better to either always call a callback with or without the lock.
> In some flows with lock and in some flows without lock would likely be
> very bad as one cannot establish a sane locking order.

On closer look, my suggestion without the device_lock may be racy, but
using the device_lock prevents the notification that needs to happen.
Hm, not as easy as I thought. :(