Re: Potential issue with hypervisor_isolated_pci_functions() handling

Niklas Schnelle
2025-10-22T17:33:38Z

On Wed, 2025-10-22 at 22:49 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> Hi, Niklas,
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 7:40 PM Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Huacai, Hi Jan, Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > I noticed that with commit a02fd05661d7 ("PCI: Extend isolated function
> > probing to LoongArch") LoongArch now also makes use of the isolated
> > function probing. First, nice to see this sees more users and that the
> > interface is useful to you.
> >
> > Seeing this, I was reminded of an issue I ran into when using this
> > mechanism with SR-IOV capable devices. In that case VFs with devfn > 7
> > and PCI_SLOT(devfn) != 0 wouldn't get probed.
> > This is because if a device is found next_fn() will check whether dev-
> > > multifunction is set. So if for example devfn == 8 is found (fn == 0)
> > dev->multifunction won't be set in pci_scan_slot() and for VFs it's
> > also not set via PCI_HEADER_TYPE_MFD. So we won't check for devfn == 9
> > even though that could very well be there.
> >
> > Now for s390 this currently doesn't cause issues because for all
> > multifunction devices we have, we either get a VF alone and then since
> > commit 25f39d3dcb48 ("s390/pci: Ignore RID for isolated VFs") use devfn
> > == 0, or we have the parent PF passed-through and then VFs always get
> > hot plugged after SR-IOV enable, which then uses
> > pci_scan_single_device(). And for non VFs we always have devfn == 0
> > and/or devfn == 1 and multifunction via the header. So in a sense the
> > above commit works around the issue, though that wasn't its primary
> > intention.
> >
> > Did either of you also run into this issue or can reproduce it?
> >
> > Somewhat related, if ARI is enabled this would also break the isolated
> > function case including on s390 where ARI is used by the platform
> > firmware, but detected as off by Linux because there is no struct
> > pci_dev associated with the PCI bus. If I patch Linux to correctly
> > detect ARI, it no longer finds an isolated PF with devfn == 1.
> LoongArch do have some problems after commit a02fd05661d7 ("PCI:
> Extend isolated function probing to LoongArch"). Please see:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20251014074100.2149737-1-chenhuacai@loongson.cn/
>
> Now we don't know what happens exactly, so I haven't answered Bjorn's
> question...
>
> Huacai
>

Interesting. I'm working on a patch that simplifies and hopefully fixes
the isolated function probing by basically going back to basics and
just trying every devfn 0-255. It would be interesting if that fixes
your issue too. In the linked patch you said that the hole left by
function 0 is not supposed to be probed, but with disabled isolated
function probing you'd still try to scan function 0 so I can't see how
that would explain your issues. On the other hand it doesn't sound like
an exact match of what I saw. I'm still working on the cover letter and
more testing including testing on x86, but if you're curious the
current state is on my git.kernel.org account[0] in the
b4/ari_no_bus_dev branch.

Thanks,
Niklas

[0]