From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: ira.weiny@intel.com
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/doe: Fix work struct declaration
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:44:24 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221115194424.GA993906@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221115011943.1051039-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
Hi Ira,
Can you fix the subject to follow capitalization convention (use "git
log --oneline") and say something more specific than "fix struct"?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:19:43PM -0800, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
>
> The callers of pci_doe_submit_task() allocate the pci_doe_task on the
> stack. This causes the work structure to be allocated on the stack
> without pci_doe_submit_task() knowing. Work item initialization needs
> to be done with either INIT_WORK_ONSTACK() or INIT_WORK() depending on
> how the work item is allocated.
>
> Jonathan suggested creating doe task allocation macros such as
> DECLARE_CDAT_DOE_TASK_ONSTACK().[1] The issue with this is the work
> function is not known to the callers and must be initialized correctly.
>
> A follow up suggestion was to have an internal 'pci_doe_work' item
> allocated by pci_doe_submit_task().[2] This requires an allocation which
> could restrict the context where tasks are used.
>
> Compromise with an intermediate step to initialize the task struct with
> a new call pci_doe_init_task() which must be called prior to submit
> task.
I'm not really a fan of passing a parameter to say "this struct is on
the stack" because that seems kind of error-prone and I don't know
what the consequence of getting it wrong would be. Sounds like it
*could* be some memory corruption or reading garbage data that would
be hard to debug.
Do we have cases today where pci_doe_submit_task() can't do the
kzalloc() as in your patch at [3]? If the current use cases allow a
kzalloc(), why not do that now and defer this until it becomes an
issue?
Bjorn
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20221014151045.24781-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/T/#m88a7f50dcce52f30c8bf5c3dcc06fa9843b54a2d
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20221014151045.24781-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/T/#m63c636c5135f304480370924f4d03c00357be667
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/Y2AnKB88ALYm9c5L@iweiny-desk3/
> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
> Reported-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cxl/core/pci.c | 2 ++
> drivers/pci/doe.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> include/linux/pci-doe.h | 8 +++++---
> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> index 9240df53ed87..a19c1fa0e2f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> @@ -525,6 +525,7 @@ static int cxl_cdat_get_length(struct device *dev,
> DECLARE_CDAT_DOE_TASK(CDAT_DOE_REQ(0), t);
> int rc;
>
> + pci_doe_init_task(cdat_doe, &t.task, true);
> rc = pci_doe_submit_task(cdat_doe, &t.task);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "DOE submit failed: %d", rc);
> @@ -554,6 +555,7 @@ static int cxl_cdat_read_table(struct device *dev,
> u32 *entry;
> int rc;
>
> + pci_doe_init_task(cdat_doe, &t.task, true);
> rc = pci_doe_submit_task(cdat_doe, &t.task);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "DOE submit failed: %d", rc);
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/doe.c b/drivers/pci/doe.c
> index e402f05068a5..cabeae4ae955 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/doe.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/doe.c
> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ static int pci_doe_discovery(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u8 *index, u16 *vid,
> };
> int rc;
>
> + pci_doe_init_task(doe_mb, &task, true);
> rc = pci_doe_submit_task(doe_mb, &task);
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
> @@ -495,6 +496,14 @@ bool pci_doe_supports_prot(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u16 vid, u8 type)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_doe_supports_prot);
>
> +void pci_doe_init_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task,
> + bool onstack)
> +{
> + task->doe_mb = doe_mb;
> + __INIT_WORK(&task->work, doe_statemachine_work, onstack);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_doe_init_task);
> +
> /**
> * pci_doe_submit_task() - Submit a task to be processed by the state machine
> *
> @@ -517,6 +526,9 @@ int pci_doe_submit_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task)
> if (!pci_doe_supports_prot(doe_mb, task->prot.vid, task->prot.type))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(task->work.func != doe_statemachine_work))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /*
> * DOE requests must be a whole number of DW and the response needs to
> * be big enough for at least 1 DW
> @@ -528,8 +540,6 @@ int pci_doe_submit_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task)
> if (test_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_DEAD, &doe_mb->flags))
> return -EIO;
>
> - task->doe_mb = doe_mb;
> - INIT_WORK(&task->work, doe_statemachine_work);
> queue_work(doe_mb->work_queue, &task->work);
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-doe.h b/include/linux/pci-doe.h
> index ed9b4df792b8..457fc0e53d64 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci-doe.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci-doe.h
> @@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ struct pci_doe_mb;
> * @rv: Return value. Length of received response or error (bytes)
> * @complete: Called when task is complete
> * @private: Private data for the consumer
> - * @work: Used internally by the mailbox
> - * @doe_mb: Used internally by the mailbox
> + * @work: Used internally by the mailbox [see pci_doe_init_task()]
> + * @doe_mb: Used internally by the mailbox [see pci_doe_init_task()]
> *
> * The payload sizes and rv are specified in bytes with the following
> * restrictions concerning the protocol.
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ struct pci_doe_task {
> void (*complete)(struct pci_doe_task *task);
> void *private;
>
> - /* No need for the user to initialize these fields */
> + /* Call pci_doe_init_task() for these */
> struct work_struct work;
> struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb;
> };
> @@ -72,6 +72,8 @@ struct pci_doe_task {
>
> struct pci_doe_mb *pcim_doe_create_mb(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 cap_offset);
> bool pci_doe_supports_prot(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u16 vid, u8 type);
> +void pci_doe_init_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task,
> + bool onstack);
> int pci_doe_submit_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task);
>
> #endif
>
> base-commit: 30a0b95b1335e12efef89dd78518ed3e4a71a763
> --
> 2.37.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-15 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-15 1:19 [PATCH] PCI/doe: Fix work struct declaration ira.weiny
2022-11-15 11:13 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-11-15 19:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2022-11-15 20:18 ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-15 20:41 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-15 20:54 ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-15 22:12 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-16 10:09 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-11-16 18:20 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-16 20:57 ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-16 21:10 ` Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221115194424.GA993906@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bwidawsk@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=gregory.price@memverge.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.