Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] PCI/IOV: Add reentrant locking in sriov_add_vfs/sriov_del_vfs for complete serialization

[Benjamin Block]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 08:43:33PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 02:01:40PM +0200, Ionut Nechita (Wind River) wrote:
> > From: Ionut Nechita <ionut.nechita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > After reverting commit 05703271c3cd ("PCI/IOV: Add PCI rescan-remove
> > locking when enabling/disabling SR-IOV") and moving the lock to
> > sriov_numvfs_store(), the path through driver .remove() (e.g. rmmod,
> > or manual unbind) that calls pci_disable_sriov() directly remains
> > unprotected against concurrent hotplug events. This affects any SR-IOV
> > capable driver that calls pci_disable_sriov() from its .remove()
> > callback (i40e, ice, mlx5, bnxt, etc.).
> > 
> > On s390, platform-generated hot-unplug events for VFs can race with
> > sriov_del_vfs() when a PF driver is being unloaded. The platform event
> > handler takes pci_rescan_remove_lock, but sriov_del_vfs() does not,
> > leading to double removal and list corruption.
> > 
> > We cannot use a plain mutex_lock() here because sriov_del_vfs() may also
> > be called from paths that already hold pci_rescan_remove_lock (e.g.
> > remove_store -> pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device_locked, or
> > sriov_numvfs_store with the lock taken by the previous patch). Using
> > mutex_lock() in those cases would deadlock.
> > 
> > Instead, introduce owner tracking for pci_rescan_remove_lock via a new
> > pci_lock_rescan_remove_reentrant() helper. This function checks if the
> > current task already holds the lock:
> >  - If the lock is not held: acquires it and returns true, providing
> >    full serialization against concurrent hotplug events (including
> >    platform-generated events on s390).
> >  - If the lock is already held by the current task (reentrant call from
> >    remove_store or sriov_numvfs_store paths): returns false without
> >    re-acquiring, avoiding deadlock while the caller already provides
> >    the necessary serialization.
> >  - If the lock is held by another task (concurrent hotplug): blocks
> >    until the lock is released, then acquires it, providing complete
> >    serialization. This is the key improvement over a trylock approach.
> 
> Just curious. Why can't you use mutex_trylock() here?

One problem with mutex_trylock() is we don't know whether we ourself or
someone else is holding the lock when it fails, we just know someone holds it;
and we can't wait for someone else to release it when there is a chance we
hold it ourself already. That was the problem with
05703271c3cd ("PCI/IOV: Add PCI rescan-remove locking when enabling/disabling SR-IOV")
before it was reverted.

-- 
Best Regards, Benjamin Block        /        Linux on IBM Z Kernel Development
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH    /   https://www.ibm.com/privacy
Vors. Aufs.-R.: Wolfgang Wendt         /        Geschäftsführung: David Faller
Sitz der Ges.: Ehningen     /     Registergericht: AmtsG Stuttgart, HRB 243294