netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/7] PCI: Make sure VF's driver get attached after PF's

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: <CAE9FiQVGGHB_amKw0-DfDifpTnRGPbxA+q3WY5F-O3x-sx386A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 May 2013 12:59:33 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] PCI: Make sure VF's driver get attached after PF's

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 11:44 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Alexander Duyck
>> <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> wrote:

>>> I'm sorry, but what is the point of this patch?  With device assignment
>>> it is always possible to have VFs loaded and the PF driver unloaded
>>> since you cannot remove the VFs if they are assigned to a VM.
>> unload PF driver will not call pci_disable_sriov?
>
> You cannot call pci_disable_sriov because you will panic all of the
> guests that have devices assigned.

ixgbe_remove did call pci_disable_sriov...

for guest panic, that is another problem.
just like you pci passthrough with real pci device and hotremove the
card in host.

...

> So how does your patch actually fix this problem?  It seems like it is
> just avoiding it.

yes, until the first one is done.

>
> From what I can tell your problem is originating in pci_call_probe.  I
> believe it is calling work_on_cpu and that doesn't seem correct since
> the work should be taking place on a CPU already local to the PF. You
> might want to look there to see why you are trying to schedule work on a
> CPU which should be perfectly fine for you to already be doing your work on.

it always try to go with local cpu with same pxm.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html