From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6AB606A31C for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=xenproject.org header.i=@xenproject.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20200302mail header.b=40aNsRgw Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1463429.1674317 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1xM5hq-0003Ti-Du; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:50 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1463429.1674317; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1xM5hq-0003Tb-BT; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:50 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1463429; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:48 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1xM5ho-0003TN-HG for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:48 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xM5ho-00000000gHc-25mD; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:48 +0000 Received: from 224.pool85-54-217.dynamic.orange.es ([85.54.217.224] helo=localhost) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xM5hn-00000009ZFs-3vYd; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:36:48 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=KSYyiEkb3HRvGWRoSzNKtIyaBWL4LjRnypc2Pf5Vodc=; b=40aNsRgwimd2KU4clov4dEsRIX nx+HEsxaGaycGF6Lq8y+mSm7BQPeWEjTF+tMo16rAndjwMnsRHFkqeHryg9N35Pi7Z2oL6DoG1A6R i6ESP7AbDqPaN6FSaAa0HBFkbsDDx6zHakwqn06YSfeIrJ1/yYAGW3Bc382lAf3JEq/c=; Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:36:45 +0100 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Andrew Cooper , Teddy Astie , Julian Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] x86/pass-through: alter locking around pt_irq_{create,destroy}_bind() Message-ID: References: <3bd58966-9ca8-484f-acb8-cda56df565a6@suse.com> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3bd58966-9ca8-484f-acb8-cda56df565a6@suse.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 28.10.2026 15:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 01:42:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >> @@ -197,8 +197,9 @@ static int vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi(unsigne > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> - pcidevs_lock(); > >> + read_lock(&currd->pci_lock); > >> ret = pt_irq_create_bind(currd, &pt_irq_bind); > >> + read_unlock(&currd->pci_lock); > > > > I think you need to extend the ->pci_lock'ed region so it also covers > > unmap_domain_pirq(), otherwise the ASSERT_PDEV_LIST_IS_READ_LOCKED() > > in there will trigger? IE: the read_unlock() needs to be where the > > pcidevs_unlock() is? > > Oh, indeed. That would only be an issue if an error arose, so it's > clear why I didn't hit that assertion. > > This being the only change (which I've made locally) necessary for > the entire series - shall I re-send, or would you mind giving an ack > for the patch with said adjustment made? I'm happy for you do do the change locally and commit: Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné Thanks, Roger.