public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: tariqt@nvidia.com
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
	davem@davemloft.net, saeedm@nvidia.com, mbloch@nvidia.com,
	leon@kernel.org, shayd@nvidia.com, horms@kernel.org,
	phaddad@nvidia.com, kees@kernel.org, parav@nvidia.com,
	gal@nvidia.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dtatulea@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V4 4/4] net/mlx5e: SD, Fix race condition in secondary device probe/remove
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 18:42:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260430014211.2375751-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260428060111.221086-5-tariqt@nvidia.com>

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
---
net/mlx5e: SD, Fix race condition in secondary device probe/remove

This commit updates secondary devices to acquire the device lock of the
primary auxiliary device during probe, suspend, resume, and remove
operations. It introduces mlx5_sd_get_adev() and mlx5_sd_put_adev() to
manage this lock ordering and add a second devcom readiness check.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/sd.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/sd.c
> index 7a1787f15320..a43ae482a679 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lib/sd.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -563,5 +567,18 @@ struct auxiliary_device *mlx5_sd_get_adev(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev,
>  	if (dev == primary)
>  		return adev;
>  
> +	device_lock(&primary->priv.adev[idx]->adev.dev);

If mlx5_devcom_comp_is_ready() returned true just before this, but the
secondary thread is preempted before reaching device_lock(), could a
concurrent removal of the primary device cause primary->priv.adev[idx]
to become NULL or freed?

It looks like the removal path (such as mlx5_unregister_device) frees the
mlx5_adev memory and explicitly sets primary->priv.adev[idx] to NULL. If
the secondary thread then resumes, it might dereference a NULL or freed
pointer when attempting to acquire the lock.

Since the second readiness check happens after the device_lock() call, does
this leave a window where memory corruption or a panic can still occur?

Additionally, since the driver core already holds device_lock(&adev->dev)
for the secondary device during callbacks like probe() and remove(), will
acquiring the primary device's lock here trigger a lockdep warning for
possible recursive locking?

Both the primary and secondary auxiliary devices use the same generic lock
class assigned in device_initialize(). While the fixed secondary to primary
ordering avoids an actual deadlock, lockdep might not distinguish between
the two mutexes without explicit lockdep subclassing.

> +	/* In case primary finish removing its adev */
> +	if (!mlx5_devcom_comp_is_ready(sd->devcom)) {
> +		device_unlock(&primary->priv.adev[idx]->adev.dev);
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
>  	return &primary->priv.adev[idx]->adev;
>  }

  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-30  1:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-28  6:01 [PATCH net V4 0/4] net/mlx5: Fixes for Socket-Direct Tariq Toukan
2026-04-28  6:01 ` [PATCH net V4 1/4] net/mlx5: SD: Serialize init/cleanup Tariq Toukan
2026-04-30  1:42   ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-30  9:38     ` Shay Drori
2026-04-28  6:01 ` [PATCH net V4 2/4] net/mlx5: SD, Keep multi-pf debugfs entries on primary Tariq Toukan
2026-04-28  6:01 ` [PATCH net V4 3/4] net/mlx5e: SD, Fix missing cleanup on probe error Tariq Toukan
2026-04-30  1:42   ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-30 12:52     ` Shay Drori
2026-04-28  6:01 ` [PATCH net V4 4/4] net/mlx5e: SD, Fix race condition in secondary device probe/remove Tariq Toukan
2026-04-30  1:42   ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-04-30 13:03     ` Shay Drori

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=20260430014211.2375751-1-kuba@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dtatulea@nvidia.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=gal@nvidia.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbloch@nvidia.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=parav@nvidia.com \
    --cc=phaddad@nvidia.com \
    --cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
    --cc=shayd@nvidia.com \
    --cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
    /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