From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Raag Jadav" <raag.jadav@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 04:40:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831044056.5620E1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831042633.1760474-3-raag.jadav@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Uninitialized work_struct leads to list corruption and kernel panic if an IRQ triggers during device probe.
--
commit 7cfc61b6d67f6291a4e51db20047caa91bfb3397
Author: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe
This commit defers wedge handling into a dedicated worker so that
xe_device_declare_wedged() can be called in IRQ context. This is required
for declaring the device as wedged on catastrophic errors received via IRQs.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> index 396d02eb2af83..150629ee4ad13 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1148,7 +1159,7 @@ int xe_device_probe(struct xe_device *xe)
>
> detect_preproduction_hw(xe);
>
> - err = drmm_add_action_or_reset(&xe->drm, xe_device_wedged_fini, xe);
> + err = xe_device_wedged_init(xe);
[Severity: High]
Does this initialize the work_struct too late in the probe sequence?
If a hardware error interrupt (like a MERT CAT error) fires during the window
after interrupts are enabled (via xe_irq_install() called earlier in
xe_device_probe()) but before this initialization completes, the interrupt
handler will call xe_device_declare_wedged().
This would attempt to schedule the uninitialized xe->wedged.work structure,
potentially leading to list corruption and a kernel panic in the workqueue
core.
> if (err)
> goto err_unregister_display;
[ ... ]
> @@ -1483,26 +1514,11 @@ void xe_device_declare_wedged(struct xe_device *xe)
> "For recovery procedure, refer to %s\n"
> "Please file a _new_ bug report at %s\n",
> WEDGED_URL, XE_BUG_URL);
>
> - for_each_gt(gt, xe, id)
> - xe_gt_declare_wedged(gt);
>
> - if (xe_device_wedged(xe)) {
> - /*
> - * XE_WEDGED_MODE_UPON_ANY_HANG_NO_RESET is intended for debugging
> - * hangs, so wedge the device with 'none' recovery method and have
> - * it available to the user for debugging.
> - */
> - if (xe->wedged.mode == XE_WEDGED_MODE_UPON_ANY_HANG_NO_RESET)
> - xe_device_set_wedged_method(xe, DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_NONE);
> - /* If no wedge recovery method is set, use default */
> - else if (!xe->wedged.method)
> - xe_device_set_wedged_method(xe, DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_REBIND |
> - DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_BUS_RESET);
> -
> - /* Notify userspace of wedged device */
> - drm_dev_wedged_event(&xe->drm, xe->wedged.method, NULL);
> + schedule_work(&xe->wedged.work);
[Severity: High]
Could this schedule an uninitialized work_struct?
If xe_device_declare_wedged() is invoked from an early interrupt handler
before xe_device_wedged_init() completes, this will attempt to queue
xe->wedged.work.
Additionally, the loop right before this calls xe_gt_declare_wedged(gt),
which could queue an uninitialized gt->wedge.worker if xe_gt_init() hasn't
completed for that GT yet.
> }
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831042633.1760474-1-raag.jadav@intel.com?part=2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-31 4:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 4:25 [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-08-31 4:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging Raag Jadav
2026-08-31 4:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe Raag Jadav
2026-08-31 4:40 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-31 4:25 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-09-02 17:56 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-08-31 4:25 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] drm/xe/debugfs: Consolidate wedged_mode debt into xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-08-31 4:25 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] drm/xe/wedge: Update naming to match with xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-08-31 4:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 4:33 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce xe_wedge Patchwork
2026-08-31 4:34 ` ✗ CI.KUnit: failure " Patchwork
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=20260831044056.5620E1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox