lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Boot failure on gru-scarlet-inx with 5.9-rc2
On 2020-09-03 15:35, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:19 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi
> <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 11:47:56PM -0400, Samuel Dionne-Riel wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:01:19 +0100
>> > Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:33:56PM -0400, Samuel Dionne-Riel wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Please print a pointer as a pointer and print both bus and
>> > > bus->parent.
>> >
>> > Hopefully pointer as a pointer is %px. Not sure what else, if that's
>> > wrong please tell.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_valid_device(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip,
>> > * do not read more than one device on the bus directly attached
>> > * to RC's downstream side.
>> > */
>> > + printk("[!!] // bus (%px) bus->parent (%px)\n", bus, bus->parent);
>> > + printk("[!!] bus->primary (%d) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (%d) && dev (%d) > 0\n", bus->primary, rockchip->root_bus_nr, dev);
>> > if (bus->primary == rockchip->root_bus_nr && dev > 0)
>> > return 0;
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Again, two values, verified with a bit of set and `sort -u`.
>> >
>> > [ 1.691266] [!!] // bus (ffff0000ef9ab800) bus->parent (0000000000000000)
>> > [ 1.691271] [!!] bus->primary (0) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (0) && dev (0) > 0
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > [ 1.697156] [!!] // bus (ffff0000ef9ac000) bus->parent (ffff0000ef9ab800)
>> > [ 1.697160] [!!] bus->primary (0) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (0) && dev (0) > 0
>> >
>> > First instance of each shown here. Last time I don't think it was.
>>
>> Ok I think I understand what the problem is.
>>
>> Can you give this patch a shot please ? I think we are dereferencing
>> a NULL pointer if bus is the root bus and dev == 0, we can rewrite
>> the check if this patch fixes the issue.
>
> Indeed. I checked all the other cases of pci_is_root_bus(bus->parent)
> and they should be fine because they are only reached if !root_bus.
>
> I would restructure the check like this instead:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> index 0bb2fb3e8a0b..9b485bea8b92 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> @@ -72,14 +72,14 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_valid_device(struct
> rockchip_pcie *rockchip,
> struct pci_bus *bus, int dev)
> {
> /* access only one slot on each root port */
> - if (pci_is_root_bus(bus) && dev > 0)
> - return 0;
> -
> - /*
> - * do not read more than one device on the bus directly
> attached
> - * to RC's downstream side.
> - */
> - if (pci_is_root_bus(bus->parent) && dev > 0)
> + if (pci_is_root_bus(bus))
> + if (dev > 0)
> + return 0;
> + else if (pci_is_root_bus(bus->parent) && dev > 0)

Careful here, this else is relative to the *closest* if,
and not what the indentation suggests...

> + /*
> + * do not read more than one device on the bus directly
> attached
> + * to RC's downstream side.
> + */
> return 0;
>
> return 1;


M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-03 18:00    [W:0.086 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site