linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] vfio: Remove the pcie check for VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ

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: <0920028c-8084-4a1c-841e-90e0d5485d4a@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 10:56:07 -0800
From: Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Julian Ruess <julianr@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Cc: helgaas@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de, alex@...zbot.org, clg@...hat.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] vfio: Remove the pcie check for
 VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX


On 1/19/2026 8:56 AM, Julian Ruess wrote:
> On Wed Jan 7, 2026 at 7:32 PM CET, Farhan Ali wrote:
>> We are configuring the error signaling on the vast majority of devices and
>> it's extremely rare that it fires anyway. This allows userspace to be
>> notified on errors for legacy PCI devices. The Internal Shared Memory (ISM)
>> device on s390x is one such device. For PCI devices on IBM s390x error
>> recovery involves platform firmware and notification to operating system
>> is done by architecture specific way. So the ISM device can still be
>> recovered when notified of an error.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c  | 6 ++----
>>   drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 3 +--
>>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
>> index c92c6c512b24..0fdce5234914 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
>> @@ -778,8 +778,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_get_irq_count(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, int irq_typ
>>   			return (flags & PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_QSIZE) + 1;
>>   		}
>>   	} else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX) {
>> -		if (pci_is_pcie(vdev->pdev))
>> -			return 1;
>> +		return 1;
>>   	} else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_REQ_IRQ_INDEX) {
>>   		return 1;
>>   	}
>> @@ -1157,8 +1156,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_ioctl_get_irq_info(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>>   	case VFIO_PCI_REQ_IRQ_INDEX:
>>   		break;
>>   	case VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX:
>> -		if (pci_is_pcie(vdev->pdev))
>> -			break;
>> +		break;
>>   		fallthrough;
> Isn't the fallthrough unreachable now?
>
> -- snip --

Yes indeed, I forget why I still had the fallthrough statement. But I 
don't think that's needed anymore, since we will have explicit break 
statements for all the valid cases.

Thanks

Farhan