lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 02/13] PCI: prevent duplicate slot names
Hi Kenji-san,

* Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>:
> Hi Alex-san,
>
> Thank you very much for your continuous effort.

We'll get there some day. ;)

>>> If name duplication was detected in pci_create_slot(), it renames the
>>> slot name like 'N-1' and return successfully. Even though slot's kobject
>>> name was registered as 'N-1', 'name' array still have 'N' at this point.
>>> So the following 'if' statement becomes true unexpectedly.
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Allow pcihp drivers to override the ACPI_PCI_SLOT name.
>>> */
>>> if (strcmp(kobject_name(&pci_slot->kobj), name)) {
>>>
>>> Then pci_hp_register() attempt to rename the slot name with 'N' again
>>> by calling kobject_rename(), but it fails because there already exists
>>> kobject with name 'N'. As a result, pci_hp_register() will fail.
>>
>> Yes, you are right, that is a problem.
>>
>> I've taken the following approach:
>>
>> - the above code is providing a mechanism to allow a
>> _hotplug_ driver to override a _detection_ driver slot
>> name.
>>
>> - in other words, we only have to worry about the case
>> when a _detection_ driver was loaded before a _hotplug_
>> driver.
>>
>> - we can ignore the case where another _hotplug_ driver
>> was loaded first, because we'll already return -EBUSY.
>>
>> - so, to figure out if a _detection_ driver has already
>> been loaded, we check to see if the pci_dev already has
>> a valid pci_slot pointer.
>
> We need to take into account that the hotplug slot can be empty.
> In this case, we cannot do this check because pci_dev doesn't
> exist, I think.

You are right. We still only have to worry about the case where a
_detection_ driver was loaded before a _hotplug_ driver, and we
need to worry abou the case of an empty slot.

I created a new interface called pci_get_physical_slot() that
will tell us if we've already created a slot or not. This will
work even if the slot is empty.

Using this inteface should simplify the tortured logic in my last
patch and make pci_hp_register easier to read.

>> - if yes, then we later check to see if the existing slot
>> name matches the requested slot name from the hotplug
>> driver.
>>
>> - if the hotplug driver is requesting a different name,
>> then we use a new interface, pci_rename_slot() which
>> will safely attempt to rename the slot without name
>> collision.
>>
>> I'll send out the patch set soon, it would be great if you could
>> test it for me, since I don't have systems with duplicate slot
>> names.
>>
>
> Sure.
>
> P.S.
> I also don't have the system with duplicate slot names. So I use
> the debug patch that emulates this kind of system for testing.

Hm, ok. I might think about adding some code to the fakephp
driver to use it as a debug tool as well...

A little more below...

>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c
>> index 3e37d63..2232608 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c
>> @@ -558,7 +558,8 @@ int pci_hp_register(struct hotplug_slot *slot, struct pci_bus *bus, int slot_nr,
>> const char *name)
>> {
>> int result;
>> - struct pci_slot *pci_slot;
>> + struct pci_dev *dev;
>> + struct pci_slot *pci_slot, *tmp_slot = NULL;
>> if (slot == NULL)
>> return -ENODEV;
>> @@ -570,9 +571,17 @@ int pci_hp_register(struct hotplug_slot *slot, struct pci_bus *bus, int slot_nr,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> - /* Check if we have already registered a slot with the same name. */
>> - if (get_slot_from_name(name))
>> - return -EEXIST;
>> + /*
>> + * If we find a tmp_slot here, it means that another slot
>> + * driver has already created a pci_slot for this device.
>> + * We care (below) if the existing slot has a different name from
>> + * the new name that this particular hotplug driver is requesting.
>> + */
>> + dev = pci_get_slot(bus, PCI_DEVFN(slot_nr, 0));
>> + if (dev && dev->slot) {
>> + tmp_slot = dev->slot;
>> + pci_dev_put(dev);
>> + }
>>
>
> I have two comments here.
>
> (1) I think the reference counter of the device will be leaked if
> (dev == NULL) && (dev->slot != NULL). We need pci_dev_put() whenever
> dev is not NULL.
>
> (2) When the slot is empty, the 'dev' will be always NULL. Therefore,
> 'tmp_slot' will be always NULL on the empty slot here. Because of
> this, the following code to rename the slot will not work on the
> empty slot, I think.

The new pci_get_physical_slot() interface will solve both issues.

Thanks.

/ac



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-23 02:07    [W:0.099 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site