From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] rust: pci: resolve IRQ in index() and embed IrqRequest in IrqVector
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 17:11:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260813171102.2406F1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813165234.620555-3-dakr@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [High] The API design forces a self-referential lifetime bound, making it impossible to safely store both the vector registration and the IRQ handler in a driver struct, naturally leading to Use-After-Free during teardown.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Multiple concurrent `IrqVectorRegistration` instances can be created, leading to a Use-After-Free of active IRQ vectors on teardown.
--
--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v3 2/5] rust: pci: resolve IRQ in index() and embed IrqRequest in IrqVector ---
commit 517346220f40fc029bc56afcf3a1427744cf6f09
Author: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
rust: pci: resolve IRQ in index() and embed IrqRequest in IrqVector
This commit eagerly resolves the IRQ number by moving the pci_irq_vector()
call into IrqVectorRegistration::index(). It embeds the resolved IrqRequest
into IrqVector, making the conversion infallible. This removes the need for
pin_init_scope() in request_irq() and request_threaded_irq().
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260808031120.363869-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com/
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci/irq.rs b/rust/kernel/pci/irq.rs
> index daba86505cd2b..81b74c4c17d98 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/pci/irq.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci/irq.rs
> @@ -68,32 +68,25 @@ const fn as_raw(self) -> u32 {
[ ... ]
> pub struct IrqVector<'a> {
> - dev: &'a Device<Bound>,
> + request: IrqRequest<'a>,
> reg: &'a IrqVectorRegistration<'a>,
> - index: u32,
> }
[Severity: High]
Does this struct definition force a self-referential lifetime bound that makes
it impossible to safely store both the vector registration and the IRQ handler
in a driver struct?
Because IrqVector<'a> borrows IrqVectorRegistration<'a> with the exact same
lifetime 'a as the device, request_irq() requires the resulting
irq::Registration to share this lifetime. A long-lived driver struct would
have to hold both the IrqVectorRegistration and the Registration that
borrows it.
This creates a self-referential struct forbidden by Safe Rust. If a developer
uses unsafe to bypass the restrictions to get it to compile, Rust drops
struct fields in declaration order. If IrqVectorRegistration is declared
before Registration, pci_free_irq_vectors() will execute before free_irq(),
destroying MSI vectors while the IRQ handler is still registered and active
in the system.
[ ... ]
> @@ -200,12 +183,8 @@ pub unsafe fn request_threaded_irq<'a, T: crate::irq::ThreadedHandler + 'a>(
> name: &'static CStr,
> handler: impl PinInit<T, Error> + 'a,
> ) -> impl PinInit<irq::ThreadedRegistration<'a, T>, Error> + 'a {
> - pin_init::pin_init_scope(move || {
> - let request = vector.try_into()?;
> -
> - // SAFETY: Caller guarantees the Registration will not be leaked.
> - Ok(unsafe { irq::ThreadedRegistration::<T>::new(request, flags, name, handler) })
> - })
> + // SAFETY: Caller guarantees the Registration will not be leaked.
> + unsafe { irq::ThreadedRegistration::<T>::new(vector.into(), flags, name, handler) }
> }
>
> /// Allocate IRQ vectors for this PCI device.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but can multiple concurrent
IrqVectorRegistration instances be created, leading to a Use-After-Free of
active IRQ vectors on teardown?
Since Device::alloc_irq_vectors() takes an immutable reference (&self), a
driver can call it multiple times. If a driver allocates MSI vectors and
then falls back to allocating INTx vectors, the C API
(pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity) successfully processes the INTx request
without checking if MSI is already enabled. This returns a second
IrqVectorRegistration.
When this second registration goes out of scope and drops, its Drop
implementation calls pci_free_irq_vectors(), which disables and frees the
global MSI state. The first registration's active IRQ handlers are then
left operating on freed hardware state and descriptors.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260813165234.620555-1-dakr@kernel.org?part=2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-13 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 16:52 [PATCH v3 0/5] Rework PCI IRQ vector code Danilo Krummrich
2026-08-13 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] rust: pci: convert IrqVectorRegistration to a lifetime-managed owning type Danilo Krummrich
2026-08-13 17:06 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] rust: pci: resolve IRQ in index() and embed IrqRequest in IrqVector Danilo Krummrich
2026-08-13 17:00 ` Gary Guo
2026-08-13 17:11 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-13 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] rust: pci: remove request_irq() and request_threaded_irq() from Device Danilo Krummrich
2026-08-13 17:05 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] PCI: Add pci_irq_type() to query the allocated interrupt type Danilo Krummrich
2026-08-13 17:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 16:52 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] rust: pci: expose " Danilo Krummrich
2026-08-13 17:07 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 17:02 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Rework PCI IRQ vector code Gary Guo
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=20260813171102.2406F1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@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