[Intel-wired-lan] e1000e pci_disable_link_state_locked() issues

[Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>]

On 2015/5/21 3:47, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I think we have some issues with the e1000e usage of
> pci_disable_link_state_locked(), which Yinghai added with 9f728f53dd70
> ("PCI/e1000e: Add and use pci_disable_link_state_locked()").
> 
> That fixed an AER deadlock in the following path, where pci_bus_sem is held
> by pci_walk_bus(), and we deadlocked when we tried to re-acquire it in
> pci_disable_link_state():
> 
>   do_recovery
>     broadcast_error_message(..., report_slot_reset)
>       pci_walk_bus
>         down_read(&pci_bus_sem)
>           cb(...)                                       # report_slot_reset
>             report_slot_reset
>               dev->driver->err_handler->slot_reset      # e1000_io_slot_reset
>                 e1000_io_slot_reset
>                   e1000e_disable_aspm
>                     pci_disable_link_state
>                       down_read(&pci_bus_sem)
> 
> 9f728f53dd70 fixed that by changing e1000e_disable_aspm() to use
> pci_disable_link_state_locked() instead, which assumes pci_bus_sem is
> already held.
> 
> That's fine for the e1000_io_slot_reset() path, where pci_bus_sem really
> *is* held.  But e1000e_disable_aspm() is also called from e1000_probe() and
> __e1000_resume(), and in those paths, we *don't* hold pci_bus_sem.
> 
> In effect, the caller of pci_disable_link_state_locked() is promising that
> pci_bus_sem is held, and __pci_disable_link_state() relies on that promise
> for its locking.  But e1000e isn't upholding its end of the bargain.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure __pci_disable_link_state() actually *needs* that locking:
> it is only called from a driver, and it should be impossible for a device
> or any upstream bridge to go away while a driver is bound to it.  If

Another question, when pci_disable_link_state() is called in driver,  the device and
its upstream bridge do not go away while a driver is bound to it, but what about a new
function device adding to the upstream bridge secondary bus. In this case, traverse
the pci_bus->devices list may be not safe.


> somebody wanted to analyze this further and propose a patch to remove the
> locking (if it seems safe), that would be great.
> 
> But in any case, __pci_disable_link_state() should be able to rely on its
> callers following the rules, so I'd like to see an e1000e change to use
> pci_disable_link_state() from the paths where pci_bus_sem is not held.
> 
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing