[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:29:53AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:01:17PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:09:17PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > I'm having second thoughts about this. One thing I'm uncomfortable
> > > with is that sprinkling pci_dev_is_disconnected() around feels ad hoc
> >
> > I think my stance always has been that this call is not good at all
> > because once you call it you never really know if it is still true as
> > the device could have been removed right afterward.
> >
> > So almost any code that relies on it is broken, there is no locking and
> > it can and will race and you will loose.
> Hm, to be honest if that's your impression I think you must have missed a
> large portion of the discussion we've been having over the past 2 years.
> Please consider reading this LWN article, particularly the "Surprise
> removal" section, to get up to speed:
> You seem to be assuming that all we care about is the *return value* of
> an mmio read. However a transaction to a surprise removed device has
> side effects beyond returning all ones, such as a Completion Timeout
> which, with thousands of transactions in flight, added up to many seconds
> to handle removal of an NVMe array and occasionally caused MCEs.

Again, I still claim this is broken hardware/firmware :)

> It is not an option to just blindly carry out device accesses even though
> it is known the device is gone, Completion Timeouts be damned.

I don't disagree with you at all, and your other email is great with
summarizing the issues here.

What I do object to is somehow relying on that function call as knowing
that the device really is present or not. It's a good hint, yes, but
driver authors still have to be able to handle the bad data coming back
from when the call races with the device being removed.

> However there is more to it than just Completion Timeouts, this is all
> detailed in the LWN article.

And that's a great article and your work here is much appreciated. I
think we are in violent agreement :)


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-09 12:33    [W:0.071 / U:2.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site