[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220630081134.48b9bb53@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 08:11:34 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Piotr Skajewski <piotrx.skajewski@...el.com>
Cc: anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, konrad0.jankowski@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] ixgbe: Add locking to prevent panic when
setting sriov_numvfs to zero
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:08:39 +0200 Piotr Skajewski wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:27:07 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:53:46 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&adapter->vfs_lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > /* set num VFs to 0 to prevent access to vfinfo */
> > > adapter->num_vfs = 0;
> > >
> > > @@ -228,6 +231,8 @@ int ixgbe_disable_sriov(struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
> > > kfree(adapter->mv_list);
> > > adapter->mv_list = NULL;
> > >
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->vfs_lock, flags);
> >
> > There's a pci_dev_put() in there, are you sure it won't sleep?
>
> Thank Jakub for your notice, during development we were aware about this
> and tests we've made on this particular case, did not report any problems
> that could be related to might_sleep in conjunction with spinlock.
To be on the safe side how about we protect adapter->num_vfs instead
of adapter->vfinfo ?
You can hold the lock just around setting adapter->num_vfs to zero,
and then inside ixgbe_msg_task() you don't have to add the new if()
because the loop bound is already adapter->num_vfs.
Smaller change, and safer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists