Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/16] vfio/pci: Add VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_PCI_ERROR_RECOVERY

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] vfio/pci: mixing goto-based cleanup and guard() in vfio_pci_recovery_set()
--

commit a042b1f42248620e0a4adaa43aee23e3f4d393dc
Author: Shameer Kolothum <skolothumtho@nvidia.com>

vfio/pci: Add VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_PCI_ERROR_RECOVERY

This commit adds a device feature to enable host PCI error recovery and
query its status via VFIO.

> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> index 2ec8022e4a692..314d77868803c 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1752,6 +1752,111 @@ static int vfio_pci_core_feature_token(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +/* Consumes the eventfd reference on both success and failure. */
> +static int vfio_pci_recovery_set(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> +				 struct eventfd_ctx *ctx, bool enable)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	guard(mutex)(&vdev->access_lock);
> +	if (!vdev->device_open) {
> +		ret = -ENODEV;
> +		goto out_put;
> +	}

[Severity: Medium]
Does this code mix goto-based error handling with scope-based guard()
cleanup?

Subsystem guidelines expect that a given routine should either convert all
resources that need cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or convert none of them.
Mixing the two in the same function creates confusing ownership semantics
that can lead to bugs during future modifications.

[ ... ]
> +
> +out_put:
> +	if (ctx)
> +		eventfd_ctx_put(ctx);
> +	return ret;
> +}

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260929173305.204856-1-skolothumtho@nvidia.com?part=15