Re: [PATCH] PCI/ACPI: fix wrong ref count handling in acpi_pci_bind()

Kenji Kaneshige
2009-05-27T00:02:05Z

Alex Chiang wrote:
> Adding Len because this should probably go through his tree, not
> Jesse's.
>
> Len, we're discussing a patch that I feel should go into 2.6.30,
> because it fixes an oops that I introduced in the beginning of
> the merge window, and that we've been working on since. We just
> now have a patch to fix it, along with another patch that I
> wrote:
>
> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/25296/
>
> This current patch is here:
>
> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/25895/
>
> Discussion follows.
>
> * Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>:
>> On Monday 25 May 2009 06:08:03 pm Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>>> Fix wrong struct pci_dev reference counter handling in acpi_pci_bind().
>>>
>>> The 'dev' field of struct acpi_pci_data is having a pointer to struct
>>> pci_dev without incrementing the reference counter. Because of this, I
>>> got the following kernel oops when I was doing some pci hotplug
>>> operations. This patch fixes this bug by replacing wrong hand-made
>>> pci_find_slot() with pci_get_slot() in acpi_pci_bind().
>> I don't like this ACPI/PCI bind thing in general because having the
>> extra .bind and .unbind methods is ugly and somewhat non-obvious, and
>> I'm nervous about object lifetime issues like this one.
>>
>> But I don't have a better alternative to offer, and there's definitely
>> a problem here, so thanks for fixing and testing it. I do have one
>> question below about whether the comment in the existing code, which
>> seems to be an excuse for doing the hand-made pci_find_slot(), is
>> still relevant, or should just be removed.
>
> I reviewed and successfully tested this patch on our ia64 machine.
>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
> Tested-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
>
>>> @@ -180,16 +177,8 @@ int acpi_pci_bind(struct acpi_device *de
>>> * PCI devices are added to the global pci list when the root
>>> * bridge start ops are run, which may not have happened yet.
>> Please update or remove this comment, which claims that "we cannot
>> simply search the global pci device list." I don't know whether the
>> comment (a) explains why we can't use pci_get_slot(), (b) explains
>> why we can't use pci_find_slot() or some other interface, (c) refers
>> to an ordering problem that doesn't exist on your system, or (d) is
>> just no longer applicable at all.
>
> I think the comment is simply no longer applicable.
>
> During boot, we exercise this path in acpi_pci_root_add():
>
> acpi_pci_root_add
> pci_acpi_scan_root
> acpi_pci_bind_root
> acpi_pci_bridge_scan
> acpi_pci_bind
>
> pci_acpi_scan_root will create the PCI namespace for us before we
> attempt to bind the devices, so we know we will find the pci_dev
> on the pci_bus->devices list.
>
> During hotplug, we exercise this path:
>
> acpiphp_enable_slot
> enable_device
> pci_scan_slot
> pci_scan_bridge
> acpiphp_bus_add
> acpi_bus_add
> acpi_add_single_object
> acpi_pci_bind
>
> pci_scan_slot() will put the new pci_devs onto pci_bus->devices,
> so by the time we get to acpi_pci_bind, the call to pci_get_slot
> will be successful.
>
> There is the case where we hotplug a bridge device:
>
> handle_hotplug_event_bridge
> handle_bridge_insertion
> acpi_bus_add
> acpi_add_single_object
> acpi_pci_bind
>
> And this does confuse me a little bit, because I'm not seeing how
> the bridge device gets added to the parent pci_bus->devices list
> before we get to acpi_pci_bind, but...
>
> Kenji's patch isn't changing the semantics on _how_ we find a
> device:
>
> - bus = pci_find_bus(data->id.segment, data->id.bus);
> - if (bus) {
> - list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
> - if (dev->devfn == PCI_DEVFN(data->id.device,
> - data->id.function)) {
> - data->dev = dev;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> - }
> + data->dev = pci_get_slot(pdata->bus,
> + PCI_DEVFN(data->id.device, data->id.function));
> if (!data->dev) {
> ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
> "Device %04x:%02x:%02x.%d not present in PCI namespace\n",
>
> pci_get_slot() iterates across bus->devices too (except that it
> correctly grabs the pci_bus_sem first) in addition to the obvious
> refcount on the pci_dev.
>
> Given the above, I feel pretty comfortable with Kenji-san's
> change, and I'd recommend that he just get rid of that confusing
> comment entirely.
>
> The only other suggestion I have is that he could trim down the
> oops output a bit to just get the stack trace:
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000000000000e8
> IP: [<ffffffff803f0e9b>] acpi_pci_unbind+0xb1/0xdd
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff803ecee4>] acpi_bus_remove+0x54/0x68
> [<ffffffff803ecf6d>] acpi_bus_trim+0x75/0xe3
> [<ffffffffa0345ddd>] acpiphp_disable_slot+0x16d/0x1e0 [acpiphp]
> [<ffffffffa03441f0>] disable_slot+0x20/0x60 [acpiphp]
> [<ffffffff803cfc18>] power_write_file+0xc8/0x110
> [<ffffffff803c6a54>] pci_slot_attr_store+0x24/0x30
> [<ffffffff803469ce>] sysfs_write_file+0xce/0x140
> [<ffffffff802e94e7>] vfs_write+0xc7/0x170
> [<ffffffff802e9aa0>] sys_write+0x50/0x90
> [<ffffffff8020bd6b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>

Thank you very much for detailed analysis. I agree with you.
I'll send an updated patch (instead of additional patch to
remove obsolete comment), but it will be tomorrow because I'm
day off today. Sorry...

Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige