Re: [PATCH 3/3] pciehp: Fix race condition handling surprise link-down

[Keith Busch]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:40:54PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:32:47AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
> > @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ static void pciehp_power_thread(struct work_struct *work)
> >  	switch (info->req) {
> >  	case DISABLE_REQ:
> >  		mutex_lock(&p_slot->hotplug_lock);
> > +		p_slot->state = POWEROFF_STATE;
> 
> It sounds right that p_slot->state should be protected.
> 
> It looks like handle_button_press_event() and
> pciehp_sysfs_enable_slot() hold p_slot->lock while updating
> p_slot->state.
> 
> You're setting "state = POWEROFF_STATE" while holding
> p_slot->hotplug_lock (not p_slot->lock).  Four lines down, we set
> "state = STATIC_STATE", but this time we're holding p_slot->lock.
> 
> What is the difference between the p_slot->lock and
> p_slot->hotplug_lock?  Do we need both?  How do we know which one to
> use?
> 
> I'm very confused.

This is _very_ confusing. :)

The p_slot->hotplug_lock serializes a power off and a power on event. We
only want to set the state when one of those events gets to execute
rather than when the event is queued. Changing the state when the event
is queued can trigger a never ending up-down sequence.

It currently looks safe to nest the p_slot->lock under the
p_slot->hotplug_lock if that is you recommendation.

Alternatively we could fix this if we used an ordered work queue for
the slot's work, but that is a significantly more complex change.