From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
To: Myeonghun Pak <mhun512@gmail.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Cc: Milena Olech <milena.olech@intel.com>,
Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ijae Kim <ae878000@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] idpf: disable PCIe PTM on probe failure and removal
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:21:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37756e55-5feb-4f5c-9400-55a9762f9a77@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260715074342.49281-1-mhun512@gmail.com>
On 7/15/2026 12:43 AM, Myeonghun Pak wrote:
> idpf_probe() enables PCIe Precision Time Measurement with
> pci_enable_ptm(pdev, NULL), which programs the PTM control bits and sets
> pdev->ptm_enabled when the bus/controller supports it.
>
> If a later probe step fails, the error path releases the allocated
> workqueues and adapter memory without disabling PTM. The remove path has
> the same imbalance when a successfully probed device is detached. In
> both cases, the PCI core's software PTM state and the device's PTM control
> bits remain set with no bound driver.
>
> Add pci_disable_ptm() to the common probe unwind after the PTM enable and
> to idpf_remove(). pci_disable_ptm() is a no-op when PTM was not enabled,
> so the non-fatal pci_enable_ptm() failure remains safe.
> pcim_enable_device() only arranges for pci_disable_device() and does not
> undo the PTM enable.
>
> Fixes: 8d5e12c5921c ("idpf: add initial PTP support")
> Co-developed-by: Ijae Kim <ae878000@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ijae Kim <ae878000@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Myeonghun Pak <mhun512@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Disable PTM in the probe error path, as requested by Emil Tantilov.
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_main.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_main.c
> index 0dd741dcfc..f08ce13c20 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_main.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ static void idpf_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> mutex_destroy(&adapter->queue_lock);
> mutex_destroy(&adapter->vc_buf_lock);
>
> + pci_disable_ptm(pdev);
Sashiko says:
If pci_enable_ptm() failed earlier during idpf_probe() because it was
unsupported by the bus or controller, does this unconditional call to
pci_disable_ptm() corrupt the upstream PTM enable counts?
Looking at pci_disable_ptm(), it does not check if the local device was
successfully enabled. It climbs the PCIe tree and erroneously decrements
atomic counters like ptm_enable_cnt on parent switches.
Could this eventually break PTM for other downstream devices sharing the
same
switch if a parent's count is incorrectly decremented to -1?
> pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> kfree(adapter);
> }
> @@ -266,7 +267,7 @@ static int idpf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> if (err) {
> pci_err(pdev, "DMA configuration failed: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>
> - goto err_free;
> + goto err_disable_ptm;
> }
>
> pci_set_master(pdev);
> @@ -279,7 +280,7 @@ static int idpf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> if (!adapter->init_wq) {
> dev_err(dev, "Failed to allocate init workqueue\n");
> err = -ENOMEM;
> - goto err_free;
> + goto err_disable_ptm;
> }
>
> adapter->serv_wq = alloc_workqueue("%s-%s-service",
> @@ -366,6 +367,8 @@ err_mbx_wq_alloc:
> destroy_workqueue(adapter->serv_wq);
> err_serv_wq_alloc:
> destroy_workqueue(adapter->init_wq);
> +err_disable_ptm:
> + pci_disable_ptm(pdev);
Like the issue in idpf_remove(), does this error path unconditionally
disable
PTM even if the earlier enable attempt failed?
If a subsequent probe step fails (such as dma_set_mask_and_coherent or
workqueue allocation), this path is taken regardless of whether
pci_enable_ptm() succeeded.
Would it make sense to track the PTM state in the adapter struct, and only
call pci_disable_ptm() when it was successfully enabled?
> err_free:
> kfree(adapter);
> return err;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-15 7:43 [PATCH v2] idpf: disable PCIe PTM on probe failure and removal Myeonghun Pak
2026-07-15 9:38 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2026-07-15 18:08 ` Mina Almasry
2026-07-17 20:21 ` Tony Nguyen [this message]
2026-07-20 14:08 ` Myeonghun Pak
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=37756e55-5feb-4f5c-9400-55a9762f9a77@intel.com \
--to=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=ae878000@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=emil.s.tantilov@intel.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhun512@gmail.com \
--cc=milena.olech@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.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