From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Abhin Parekadan Jose" <abhinjoses@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] PCI: pciehp: Add pci_hp_wait_link_change()
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 17:03:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260927170355.759301F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260927165459.829900-3-abhinjoses@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] pci: missing acquire barrier in pci_hp_wait_link_change()
--
commit 4a9f36e746ab6c768961f1d34f724895b17c9def
Author: Abhin Parekadan Jose <abhinjoses@gmail.com>
PCI: pciehp: Add pci_hp_wait_link_change()
pci_hp_spurious_link_change() awaits the end of a code section causing
spurious link changes, such as a Secondary Bus Reset. This patch splits the
wait out into a new function pci_hp_wait_link_change() to allow hotplug
drivers to wait for the link to settle without clearing the changed state.
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c
> index fadcf98a8a660..c3e0ee8b36381 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -528,6 +528,24 @@ void pci_hp_unignore_link_change(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> wake_up_all(&pci_hp_link_change_wq);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * pci_hp_wait_link_change - await end of code section causing spurious link changes
> + * @pdev: PCI hotplug bridge
> + *
> + * Await the end of a concurrently executing code section which is causing
> + * spurious link changes on the Secondary Bus of @pdev, if there is one.
> + *
> + * Unlike pci_hp_spurious_link_change(), leave the record that such a code
> + * section has executed in place. May be called by hotplug drivers which need
> + * the link to have settled, but not the cause of a link change, so that they
> + * don't take the answer away from the caller of pci_hp_spurious_link_change().
> + */
> +void pci_hp_wait_link_change(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + wait_event(pci_hp_link_change_wq,
> + !test_bit(PCI_LINK_CHANGING, &pdev->priv_flags));
> +}
> +
[Severity: High]
Does this wait_event() condition check need an explicit acquire barrier?
If !test_bit(PCI_LINK_CHANGING, ...) evaluates to true immediately,
wait_event() returns without executing any memory barriers.
On weakly ordered architectures like ARM64, could this allow the CPU or
compiler to reorder the caller's subsequent state reads before the test_bit()
load?
For instance, if thread A clears PCI_LINK_CHANGING and wakes waiters, and
thread B calls pci_hp_wait_link_change() and returns immediately without a
barrier, could thread B's subsequent PCIe config reads execute before observing
the link state change, even if inside an acquire lock like down_read_nested()?
Would using test_bit_acquire() or an explicit smp_mb() prevent stale reads
here?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260927165459.829900-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com?part=2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-27 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-27 16:54 [PATCH RFC v2 0/5] PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal during safe removal Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 16:54 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] PCI: Report surprise removal event Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 17:07 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-27 16:54 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] PCI: pciehp: Add pci_hp_wait_link_change() Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 17:03 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-27 16:54 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] PCI/DPC: Add pci_dpc_wait_recovery() Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 16:59 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-27 16:54 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/5] PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal from pciehp_isr() Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 17:02 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-27 16:54 ` [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] misc: Add edu_srpoc surprise removal POC driver Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 17:00 ` sashiko-bot
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=20260927170355.759301F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=abhinjoses@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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.