lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:49:08PM +0000, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:
> On 11/08/2018 04:43 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> > Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitive information.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:32:58PM -0700, Keith Busch 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
> >>>> instead of systematic, in the sense that I don't know how we convince
> >>>> ourselves that this (and only this) is the correct place to put it.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> AIUI, we're not trying to create code to rely on this. This more about
> >> reducing reliance on hardware. If the software misses the race once and
> >> accesses disconnected device memory, that's usually not a big deal to
> >> let hardware sort it out, but the point is not to push our luck.
> >
> > Then why even care about this call at all? If you need to really know
> > if the read worked, you have to check the value. If the value is FF
> > then you have a huge hint that the hardware is now gone. And you can
> > rely on it being gone, you can never rely on making the call to the
> > function to check if the hardware is there to be still valid any point
> > in time after the call returns.
>
> In the case that we're trying to fix, this code executing is a result of
> the device being gone, so we can guarantee race-free operation. I agree
> that there is a race, in the general case. As far as checking the result
> for all F's, that's not an option when firmware crashes the system as a
> result of the mmio read/write. It's never pretty when firmware gets
> involved.

If you have firmware that crashes the system when you try to read from a
PCI device that was hot-removed, that is broken firmware and needs to be
fixed. The kernel can not work around that as again, you will never win
that race.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-08 23:52    [W:0.083 / U:25.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site