From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Raag Jadav" <raag.jadav@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/9] drm/xe/hw_error: Guard csc_hw_error_work() with runtime PM
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:43:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-173956@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016072623.457392-4-raag.jadav@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] xe: missing cancel_work_sync() for csc_hw_error_work causes UAF
- [Medium] drm/xe: missing multiple invocation protection in xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable() causes sysfs WARN
- [Low] drm/xe: missing xe_pm.h header inclusion for guard(xe_pm_runtime)
--
commit 8e1fc55f44fb943c373142f62d0ab081c339411d
Author: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
drm/xe/hw_error: Guard csc_hw_error_work() with runtime PM
This commit adds a runtime PM reference around the survivability mode
enablement path in the hardware error worker.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_error.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_error.c
> index f53a6b3055de1..7575cc09cc2a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_error.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_error.c
> @@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ static void csc_hw_error_work(struct work_struct *work)
> struct xe_tile *tile = container_of(work, typeof(*tile), csc_hw_error_work);
> struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(tile);
>
> + guard(xe_pm_runtime)(xe);
[Severity: Low]
Does this compile cleanly?
The guard(xe_pm_runtime) macro requires the corresponding cleanup class
definition class_xe_pm_runtime_t.
This class is defined in xe_pm.h, but it appears xe_hw_error.c doesn't
include it directly or indirectly, which might lead to an unknown type
build error.
[Severity: High]
Is there a missing work cancellation regression during device teardown?
csc_hw_error_work is queued to the system workqueue upon a hardware error.
If the driver is removed or the module unloaded, the DRM and device core
release paths will free the xe and tile structures.
If cancel_work_sync() is missing during teardown, couldn't an executing
or pending worker cause a use-after-free when it tries to dereference xe
in this guard?
> xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(xe);
[Severity: Medium]
Could multiple hardware errors trigger a sysfs warning regression here?
csc_hw_error_work() can be queued and executed multiple times. If
xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable() is invoked unconditionally on each
run, it will attempt to re-register the existing sysfs files via
create_survivability_sysfs().
This could fail with -EEXIST and trigger a kernel warning about duplicate
filenames.
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016072623.457392-1-raag.jadav@intel.com?part=3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 7:25 [PATCH v10 0/9] Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:25 ` [PATCH v10 1/9] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 7:25 ` [PATCH v10 2/9] drm/xe: Drop xe_device_set_wedged_method() Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:25 ` [PATCH v10 3/9] drm/xe/hw_error: Guard csc_hw_error_work() with runtime PM Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:43 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16 7:25 ` [PATCH v10 4/9] drm/xe: Move xe_device_wedged_fini() registration to xe_device_probe_early() Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:25 ` [PATCH v10 5/9] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:26 ` [PATCH v10 6/9] drm/xe/pci_error: Flush GT wedge worker before bus reset Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 7:26 ` [PATCH v10 7/9] drm/xe/amc: Guard xe_amc_work() with runtime PM Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 7:26 ` [PATCH v10 8/9] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:34 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 7:26 ` [PATCH v10 9/9] drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 7:52 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 8:05 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce xe_wedge (rev9) Patchwork
2026-10-16 8:06 ` ✗ 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=sashiko-outbox-173956@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