From patchwork Tue Nov 19 01:15:45 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Xiang Zheng X-Patchwork-Id: 11250621 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847F01593 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E8022313 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726942AbfKSBQc (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:16:32 -0500 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:34018 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726775AbfKSBQc (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:16:32 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 019D6627C3C33EB3DB28; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:16:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from HGHY4Z004218071.china.huawei.com (10.133.224.57) by DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:16:20 +0800 From: Xiang Zheng To: , CC: , , , , , , , , , , Subject: [PATCH v2] pci: lock the pci_cfg_wait queue for the consistency of data Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:15:45 +0800 Message-ID: <20191119011545.15408-1-zhengxiang9@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.15.1.windows.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.133.224.57] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Commit "7ea7e98fd8d0" suggests that the "pci_lock" is sufficient, and all the callers of pci_wait_cfg() are wrapped with the "pci_lock". However, since the commit "cdcb33f98244" merged, the accesses to the pci_cfg_wait queue are not safe anymore. A "pci_lock" is insufficient and we need to hold an additional queue lock while read/write the wait queue. So let's use the add_wait_queue()/remove_wait_queue() instead of __add_wait_queue()/__remove_wait_queue(). Also move the wait queue functionality around the "schedule()" function to avoid reintroducing the deadlock addressed by "cdcb33f98244". Signed-off-by: Xiang Zheng Cc: Heyi Guo Cc: Biaoxiang Ye --- v2: - Move the wait queue functionality around the "schedule()" function to avoid reintroducing the deadlock addressed by "cdcb33f98244" --- drivers/pci/access.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c index 2fccb5762c76..09342a74e5ea 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/access.c +++ b/drivers/pci/access.c @@ -207,14 +207,14 @@ static noinline void pci_wait_cfg(struct pci_dev *dev) { DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current); - __add_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait); do { set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pci_lock); + add_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait); schedule(); + remove_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait); raw_spin_lock_irq(&pci_lock); } while (dev->block_cfg_access); - __remove_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait); } /* Returns 0 on success, negative values indicate error. */