Message ID | 20240709195716.3354637-1-kbusch@meta.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
Headers | show |
Series | [RESEND] PCI: fix recursive device locking | expand |
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:57:16PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > @@ -5488,9 +5488,10 @@ static void pci_bus_lock(struct pci_bus *bus) > > pci_dev_lock(bus->self); > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > - pci_dev_lock(dev); > if (dev->subordinate) > pci_bus_lock(dev->subordinate); > + else > + pci_dev_lock(dev); > } > } > > @@ -5502,7 +5503,8 @@ static void pci_bus_unlock(struct pci_bus *bus) > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > if (dev->subordinate) > pci_bus_unlock(dev->subordinate); > - pci_dev_unlock(dev); > + else > + pci_dev_unlock(dev); > } > pci_dev_unlock(bus->self); > } I realized pci_slot_lock() has the same problem. I wasn't able to test that path from not having a pcie topology with a subordinate on the slot device, but it follows the same pattern. Same thing with pci_bus_trylock() for that matter, so I will make a new version.
Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:57:16PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > @@ -5488,9 +5488,10 @@ static void pci_bus_lock(struct pci_bus *bus) > > > > pci_dev_lock(bus->self); > > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > > - pci_dev_lock(dev); > > if (dev->subordinate) > > pci_bus_lock(dev->subordinate); > > + else > > + pci_dev_lock(dev); > > } > > } > > > > @@ -5502,7 +5503,8 @@ static void pci_bus_unlock(struct pci_bus *bus) > > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > > if (dev->subordinate) > > pci_bus_unlock(dev->subordinate); > > - pci_dev_unlock(dev); > > + else > > + pci_dev_unlock(dev); > > } > > pci_dev_unlock(bus->self); > > } > > I realized pci_slot_lock() has the same problem. I wasn't able to test > that path from not having a pcie topology with a subordinate on the slot > device, but it follows the same pattern. Same thing with > pci_bus_trylock() for that matter, so I will make a new version. I can take another look at that one as well, but feel free to carry my Reviewed-by tag on that one, and just trust that I'll scream if I notice something late.
Dan Williams wrote: > > I realized pci_slot_lock() has the same problem. I wasn't able to test > > that path from not having a pcie topology with a subordinate on the slot > > device, but it follows the same pattern. Same thing with > > pci_bus_trylock() for that matter, so I will make a new version. > > I can take another look at that one as well, but feel free to carry my > Reviewed-by tag on that one, and just trust that I'll scream if I notice > something late. Disregard, I mistook this as comment about v2 rather than v1. v2 is good to go.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c index df550953fa260..5ab13bf5a3caa 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c @@ -5488,9 +5488,10 @@ static void pci_bus_lock(struct pci_bus *bus) pci_dev_lock(bus->self); list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { - pci_dev_lock(dev); if (dev->subordinate) pci_bus_lock(dev->subordinate); + else + pci_dev_lock(dev); } } @@ -5502,7 +5503,8 @@ static void pci_bus_unlock(struct pci_bus *bus) list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { if (dev->subordinate) pci_bus_unlock(dev->subordinate); - pci_dev_unlock(dev); + else + pci_dev_unlock(dev); } pci_dev_unlock(bus->self); }