From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE56C43441 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E568920840 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:49:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=dellteam.com header.i=@dellteam.com header.b="r6px+p66" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E568920840 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Dellteam.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727362AbeKII05 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:26:57 -0500 Received: from esa4.dell-outbound.iphmx.com ([68.232.149.214]:3947 "EHLO esa4.dell-outbound.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726875AbeKII05 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:26:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dellteam.com; i=@dellteam.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1541717353; x=1573253353; h=cc:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=N60mzE6xZJ2Jy7Icwu1jrfOXy7ZLretMSb1Cfesa4Tg=; b=r6px+p66sKhZuVdb9myzMa51bQUrxX3BnzMPtajMPcUvzVxfPPLzPLx6 FD5KQGkS5zFiN/WdnfKRKnjRXv7JY3J1nW+30tRexLvADsRTm3w3p88aC OATiNXRfDinhX1X70fDbj4U7lDHoaUi87oIoFIU72wqWyfL+UePy8EuY8 s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EFAAB5vORbhiWd50NYDBsBAQEBAwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQcDAQEBgVEGAQEBCwGDazGMBl+LHYINepY4FIFmCwEBgXeCdYMbIjQNDQE?= =?us-ascii?q?DAQECAQECAQECEAEBAQoJCwgpL4I2IoJkAQEBAxILHT8QAgEIGB4QVwIEARo?= =?us-ascii?q?agn+CApxrAoEQiVgBAQGCHIosi3mCF4ERgl01hD4BDAESAQcGEiyFLwKKfZR?= =?us-ascii?q?LCQWRCSCBV4UBgyKGcoJ0lFUCBAIEBQIUgUOBHXFwgz2CNBuOCkABi0iBH4E?= =?us-ascii?q?fAQE?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EFAAB5vORbhiWd50NYDBsBAQEBAwEBAQcDAQEBgVEGA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBCwGDazGMBl+LHYINepY4FIFmCwEBgXeCdYMbIjQNDQEDAQECAQECAQECE?= =?us-ascii?q?AEBAQoJCwgpL4I2IoJkAQEBAxILHT8QAgEIGB4QVwIEARoagn+CApxrAoEQi?= =?us-ascii?q?VgBAQGCHIosi3mCF4ERgl01hD4BDAESAQcGEiyFLwKKfZRLCQWRCSCBV4UBg?= =?us-ascii?q?yKGcoJ0lFUCBAIEBQIUgUOBHXFwgz2CNBuOCkABi0iBH4EfAQE?= Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com ([67.231.157.37]) by esa4.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 08 Nov 2018 16:49:12 -0600 Received: from pps.filterd (m0089483.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA8MmAhq034574; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:49:12 -0500 Received: from esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com (esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com [68.232.154.99]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nmnhub2sh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:49:11 -0500 Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com ([143.166.85.206]) by esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256; 09 Nov 2018 04:49:10 +0600 X-LoopCount0: from 10.166.134.87 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,481,1534827600"; d="scan'208";a="1323441867" From: To: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected Thread-Index: AQHUT50UQ290XPGvJEGnaSTTjbCF+g== Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:49:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20d68e586fff4dcca5616d5056f6fc21@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM> References: <20180918221501.13112-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20181107234257.GC41183@google.com> <20181108200855.GE41183@google.com> <20181108220117.GA11466@kroah.com> <20181108223258.GD2932@localhost.localdomain> <20181108224255.GA20619@kroah.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.177.90.70] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-11-08_13:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1811080192 Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On 11/08/2018 04:43 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:=0A= > =0A= > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]=0A= > Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitiv= e information.=0A= > =0A= > =0A= > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:32:58PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:=0A= >> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:01:17PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:=0A= >>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:09:17PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:=0A= >>>> I'm having second thoughts about this. One thing I'm uncomfortable=0A= >>>> with is that sprinkling pci_dev_is_disconnected() around feels ad hoc= =0A= >>>> instead of systematic, in the sense that I don't know how we convince= =0A= >>>> ourselves that this (and only this) is the correct place to put it.=0A= >>>=0A= >>> I think my stance always has been that this call is not good at all=0A= >>> because once you call it you never really know if it is still true as= =0A= >>> the device could have been removed right afterward.=0A= >>>=0A= >>> So almost any code that relies on it is broken, there is no locking and= =0A= >>> it can and will race and you will loose.=0A= >>=0A= >> AIUI, we're not trying to create code to rely on this. This more about= =0A= >> reducing reliance on hardware. If the software misses the race once and= =0A= >> accesses disconnected device memory, that's usually not a big deal to=0A= >> let hardware sort it out, but the point is not to push our luck.=0A= > =0A= > Then why even care about this call at all? If you need to really know=0A= > if the read worked, you have to check the value. If the value is FF=0A= > then you have a huge hint that the hardware is now gone. And you can=0A= > rely on it being gone, you can never rely on making the call to the=0A= > function to check if the hardware is there to be still valid any point=0A= > in time after the call returns.=0A= =0A= In the case that we're trying to fix, this code executing is a result of = =0A= the device being gone, so we can guarantee race-free operation. I agree =0A= that there is a race, in the general case. As far as checking the result = =0A= for all F's, that's not an option when firmware crashes the system as a =0A= result of the mmio read/write. It's never pretty when firmware gets =0A= involved.=0A= =0A= Alex=0A=