Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <61e3dfcf831fab4443b86579f39d4f08c6200c41.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] Revert "PCI: Fix is_added/is_busmaster race
 condition"
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Hari Vyas <hari.vyas@broadcom.com>,
        Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>,
        Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@broadcom.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@kalray.eu>,
        Pierre-Yves Kerbrat <pkerbrat@kalray.eu>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:12:07 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20180820071703.hnsyhb5pz4svb7jg@wunner.de>
References: <20180817044902.31420-1-benh@kernel.crashing.org>
         <20180817044902.31420-2-benh@kernel.crashing.org>
         <20180817154431.GC128050@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
         <06c1233b71dea08b1fc32334acefc48c32c46557.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
         <20180819022440.GG128050@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
         <4d777ed8c17b479e59b16cc0b4e9a3f6537f9884.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
         <20180820071703.hnsyhb5pz4svb7jg@wunner.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 09:17 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:10:59PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > I chose to create a new mutex which we should be able to address other
> > similar races if we find them. The other solutions that I dismissed
> > were:
> > 
> >  - Using the device_lock. A explained previously, this is tricky, I
> > prefer not using this for anything other than locking against
> > concurrent add/remove. The main issue is that drivers will be sometimes
> > called in context where that's already held, so we can't take it inside
> > pci_enable_device() and I'd rather not add new constraints such as
> > "pci_enable_device() must be only called from probe() unless you also
> > take the device lock". It would be tricky to audit everybody...
> > 
> >  - Using a global mutex. We could move the bridge lock from AER to core
> > code for example, and use that. But it doesn't buy us much, and
> > slightly redecuces parallelism. It also makes it a little bit more
> > messy to walk up the bridge chain, we'd have to do a
> > pci_enable_device_unlocked or something, messy.
> 
> +1 from my side for adding a struct mutex to struct pci_dev to protect
> state changes.

Ok thanks. This is what my patch proposes. We can use it later to
protect more things if we wish to do so.

> The device_lock() primarily protects binding / unbinding of the device
> and pci_dev state may have to be changed while binding / unbinding.

Yup, precisely.

> A global lock invites deadlocks if multiple devices are added / removed
> concurrently where one is a parent of the other.  (Think hot-removal of
> multiple devices on a Thunderbolt daisy-chain.)

Yes.

> As said I'd also welcome folding PCI_DEV_DISCONNECTED into enum
> pci_channel_state, either as an additional state or by using
> pci_channel_io_perm_failure.

Ok. I have that in my tentative series but I think for robustness, I
should make the error_state field atomically updated in order to ensure
that no transition out of "disconnected" can happen while racing with
concurrent error_state updates at interrupt time (at least with EEH, it
can be updated from any read{b,w,l,q}).

I'll do a bit more work on the patches this week as time permits and
send a non-RFC series.

Cheers,
Ben. 

> Thanks,
> 
> Lukas