From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Improve logic to check status for doorbell test case
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 14:45:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <amtHbHP0_2bBBa4C@ryzen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260730123357.D349F1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 12:33:57PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
>
> New issues:
> - [Medium] PCIe surprise removals masked by incorrectly evaluating an all-1s read as success.
>
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] Unvalidated endpoint input leads to NULL pointer dereference and out-of-bounds MMIO write.
> - [High] Race condition between module teardown and active ioctls leading to double-free or UAF of IRQ vectors.
> - [High] Unbounded, uninterruptible waits on endpoint interrupts create unkillable tasks and a global ioctl deadlock.
> --
>
> --- Patch [2]: [PATCH 2/2] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Improve logic to check status for doorbell test case ---
> commit e34bb71884c618c46be8a57cc0405805a9d2c585
> Author: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
>
> misc: pci_endpoint_test: Improve logic to check status for doorbell test case
>
> This patch modifies the doorbell test case to verify if the SUCCESS bit was
> set rather than checking if the FAIL bit was set. This handles cases where
> an IRQ timeout occurs or buggy EPC drivers send multiple IRQs.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
> > --- a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
> > @@ -1094,7 +1094,7 @@ static int pci_endpoint_test_doorbell(struct pci_endpoint_test *test)
> > left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&test->irq_raised, msecs_to_jiffies(1000));
> >
> > status = pci_endpoint_test_readl(test, PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_STATUS);
> > - if (!left || (status & STATUS_DOORBELL_ENABLE_FAIL)) {
> > + if (!left || !(status & STATUS_DOORBELL_ENABLE_SUCCESS)) {
>
> [Severity: Medium]
> If the PCIe endpoint surprise-disconnects or the link goes down, MMIO reads
> like pci_endpoint_test_readl() will return all-1s (0xFFFFFFFF). By checking
> !(status & STATUS_DOORBELL_ENABLE_SUCCESS), an all-1s read evaluates as true
> for the bitwise AND, making the logical NOT false.
>
> Does this inadvertently bypass the error handler during a hardware failure?
With this logic, every readl() in drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c should check
if the return value is 0xFFFFFFFF.
Which they do not:
reg = pci_endpoint_test_readl(test, PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_STATUS);
if (!(reg & STATUS_READ_SUCCESS))
ret = -EIO;
This brings pci_endpoint_test_doorbell() in line with pci_endpoint_test_read().
I still think this patch makes sense.
Kind regards,
Niklas
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-30 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-30 12:20 [PATCH 0/2] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Doorbell fix and improvement Niklas Cassel
2026-07-30 12:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Fix doorbell success logic Niklas Cassel
2026-07-30 12:30 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-30 12:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Improve logic to check status for doorbell test case Niklas Cassel
2026-07-30 12:33 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-30 12:45 ` Niklas Cassel [this message]
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=amtHbHP0_2bBBa4C@ryzen \
--to=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@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