intel-xe.lists.freedesktop.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Benjamin Block" <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
	intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 5/5] s390/pci: Fix circular/recursive deadlocks in PCI-bus and -device release
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:44:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260924164406.B7A151F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <845f3fd0e94294765ea10454823c21e464d2f4bd.1790267348.git.bblock@linux.ibm.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] pci: mixing goto and cleanup helpers in __zpci_event_error and pci_base_init
--

commit 703530c4b98b53581e1625ffc110fa9701e163ee
Author: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>

s390/pci: Fix circular/recursive deadlocks in PCI-bus and -device release

When removing PCI device or PCI bus objects there are a couple of
call-chains where it is possible that the kernel runs into a circular
deadlock involving the central pci_rescan_remove_lock.

> diff --git a/arch/s390/pci/pci.c b/arch/s390/pci/pci.c
> index d64c544b32b0c..4fc3e3dc87ad1 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/pci/pci.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/pci/pci.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1208,7 +1212,8 @@ static int __init pci_base_init(void)
>  	if (rc)
>  		goto out_irq;
>  
> -	rc = zpci_scan_devices();
> +	scoped_guard(pci_rescan_remove)
> +		rc = zpci_scan_devices();
>  	if (rc)
>  		goto out_find;
>  

[Severity: Medium]
Is it intentional to mix goto-based error handling with scope-based cleanup
helpers here?

The pci_base_init() function contains multiple goto statements for error
handling, and this patch introduces a scoped_guard() into the same routine.
The cleanup.h guidelines state that usage of goto and cleanup helpers should
never be mixed in the same function.

[ ... ]
> diff --git a/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c b/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c
> index f317a1465dad8..268f435677ae3 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ static void __zpci_event_error(struct zpci_ccdf_err *ccdf)
>  	pci_dev_put(pdev);
>  no_pdev:
>  	mutex_unlock(&zdev->state_lock);
> +	guard(pci_rescan_remove)();
>  	zpci_zdev_put(zdev);
>  }
>  

[Severity: Medium]
Can this introduction of guard() into __zpci_event_error() also cause issues
with mixed cleanup paradigms?

In __zpci_event_error(), there are goto statements used for error handling,
and this patch introduces a guard() right at the cleanup label. Mixing goto
with cleanup.h helpers in the same function goes against the subsystem
guidelines.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1790267348.git.bblock@linux.ibm.com?part=5

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-24 16:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-24 16:29 [PATCH v15 0/5] PCI/IOV: Fix SR-IOV locking races and AB-BA deadlocks Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:29 ` [PATCH v15 1/5] PCI/IOV: Make pci_lock_rescan_remove() reentrant and protect sriov_add_vfs/sriov_del_vfs Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:40   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-24 16:29 ` [PATCH v15 2/5] PCI: Fix AB-BA deadlock between device_lock and pci_rescan_remove_lock in remove_store Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:38   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-24 16:29 ` [PATCH v15 3/5] PCI: Move declaration of pci_rescan_remove_lock into public pci.h Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:35   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-24 16:29 ` [PATCH v15 4/5] PCI: Provide lock guard for pci_rescan_remove_lock Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:34   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-24 16:29 ` [PATCH v15 5/5] s390/pci: Fix circular/recursive deadlocks in PCI-bus and -device release Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:44   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-25  5:20     ` Benjamin Block
2026-10-02 12:55   ` [PATCH v16 " Benjamin Block
2026-09-24 16:35 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for PCI/IOV: Fix SR-IOV locking races and AB-BA deadlocks Patchwork
2026-09-24 16:37 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-09-24 17:46 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-09-25  6:20 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " Patchwork
2026-10-02 13:02 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for PCI/IOV: Fix SR-IOV locking races and AB-BA deadlocks (rev2) Patchwork
2026-10-02 13:04 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " 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=20260924164406.B7A151F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bblock@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).