Message-ID: <1793b3cd12921b7a3fa8b3ee7e20b7cf1df1eca1.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] PCI: s390: Fix use-after-free of PCI bus
 resources with s390 per-function hotplug
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Gerd Bayer <gbayer@linux.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:54:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1a621a2b836d81d12b6f265f47d93b827e0a82df.camel@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20230217231503.GA3425666@bhelgaas>
         <1a621a2b836d81d12b6f265f47d93b827e0a82df.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 13:53 +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 17:15 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
---8<---
> > Other random questions unrelated to this patch:
> >=20
> >   - zpci_bus_create_pci_bus() calls pci_bus_add_devices().  Isn't that
> >     pointless?  AFAICT, the bus->devices list is empty then.
>=20
> Yes I think you're right it does nothing and can be dropped.
>=20
> >=20
> >   - What about zpci_bus_scan_device()?  Why does it call both
> >     pci_bus_add_device() and pci_bus_add_devices()?  The latter will
> >     just call the former, so it looks redundant.  And the latter is
> >     locked but not the former?
>=20
> Hmm. great find. This seems to have been weird and redundant since I
> first used that pattern in 3047766bc6ec ("s390/pci: fix enabling a
> reserved PCI function"). I think maybe then the reason for this was
> that prior to 960ac3626487 ("s390/pci: allow zPCI zbus without a
> function zero") when the newly enabled is devfn =3D=3D 0 there could be
> functions from the same bus which would not have been added yet. I'm
> not sure though. That was definitely the idea behind the
> zpci_bus_scan_bus() in zpci_scan_configured_devices() that is also
> redundant now as we can now scan each function as it appears.
>=20
> This will definitely need to be cleaned up.
>=20

I'm working on cleaning this up but I'm a little confused by what
exactly needs to be under the pci_rescan_remove lock. For example the
pci_bus_add_device(virtfn) at the end of pci_iov_add_virtfn() doesn't
seem to be under the lock while most calls to pci_bus_add_devices()
are, most prominently the one in acpi_pci_root_add() which I assume is
what is used on most x86 systems. Any hints?

Also I think my original thought here might have been a premature worry
about PCI-to-PCI bridges thinking that adding the new device could lead
to more devices appearing. Of course actually thinking about it a bit
more there are quite a few other things that won't work without further
changes if we wanted to add bridges e.g. we would need to create
zpci_dev structs for these somewhere.