Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390/pci: Extend device lock to cover zpci_report_status()

[Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2026-08-21 at 14:59 +0200, Benjamin Block wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 02:30:18PM -0700, Farhan Ali wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/19/2026 2:58 AM, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > As zpci_report_status() accesses the device's driver the device lock
> > > needs to be held. Extend the critical section to cover the
> > > zpci_report_status() call.
> > > 
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Fixes: 4ec6054e7321 ("s390/pci: Report PCI error recovery results via SCLP")
> > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c b/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c
> > > index 839bd91c056e..48c150d6ba81 100644
> > > --- a/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/pci/pci_event.c
> > > @@ -256,8 +256,8 @@ static pci_ers_result_t zpci_event_attempt_error_recovery(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > >   		driver->err_handler->resume(pdev);
> > >   	pci_uevent_ers(pdev, PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED);
> > >   out_unlock:
> > > -	device_unlock(&pdev->dev);
> > >   	zpci_report_status(zdev, "recovery", status_str);
> > > +	device_unlock(&pdev->dev);
> > >   
> > >   	return ers_res;
> > >   }
> > 
> > AFAICT this change is correct, but should we also add a lockdep_assert 
> 
> Andy maybe the context one `__must_hold()` or something as function attribute.
> 
> > in zpci_report_status()? Since this is the only placed its called, it 
> > maybe fine as is. I just fear that we could miss on getting the lock if 
> > we were to re-use zpci_report_status().
> 
> Yeah, I agree. It's not obvious.
> 
> I guess the critical point here why we need the lock is this line:
> 
> 		driver = to_pci_driver(pdev->dev.driver);
> 
> right? Because we assume the relation between driver and device stays intact
> after we get that assignment.
> 
> Because otherwise I don't see why we must get the lock, if we get a valid
> reference in zpci_report_status().

Yes exactly, we need to make sure the driver isn't unbound or worse
unloaded in the middle of it. It's quite subtle which is why I forgot
it in the first place I guess.

Also note that the function may be called, and does handle, both an
unbound device (driver == NULL) and/or a zdev prior to probing the
associated pdev (pdev == NULL). This means the device_lock_assert()
needs to be inside the !pdev block. I'd think this also means we can't
really use __must_hold(), right?

Thanks,
Niklas