On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:31:26PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 12:41 PM
> > The subject line only describes the mechanical code change, which is
> > obvious from the patch. It would be better if we could say something
> > about *why* we need this.
>
> Hi Bjorn,
> Sorry. I'll try to write a better changelog in v2. :-)
>
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:32:28AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > >
> > > When a slot is removed, the pci_dev must still exist.
> > >
> > > pci_remove_root_bus() removes and free all the pci_devs, so
> > > hv_pci_remove_slots() must be called before pci_remove_root_bus(),
> > > otherwise a general protection fault can happen, if the kernel is built
> >
> > "general protection fault" is an x86 term that doesn't really say what
> > the issue is. I suspect this would be a "use-after-free" problem.
>
> Yes, it's use-after-free. I'll fix the the wording.
>
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c
> > > @@ -2757,8 +2757,8 @@ static int hv_pci_remove(struct hv_device *hdev)
> > > /* Remove the bus from PCI's point of view. */
> > > pci_lock_rescan_remove();
> > > pci_stop_root_bus(hbus->pci_bus);
> > > - pci_remove_root_bus(hbus->pci_bus);
> > > hv_pci_remove_slots(hbus);
> > > + pci_remove_root_bus(hbus->pci_bus);
> >
> > I'm curious about why we need hv_pci_remove_slots() at all. None of
> > the other callers of pci_stop_root_bus() and pci_remove_root_bus() do
> > anything similar to hv_pci_remove_slots().
> >
> > Surely some of those callers also support slots, so there must be some
> > other path that calls pci_destroy_slot() in those cases. Can we use a
> > similar strategy here?
>
> Originally Stephen Heminger added the slot code for pci-hyperv.c:
> a15f2c08c708 ("PCI: hv: support reporting serial number as slot information")
> So he may know this better. My understanding is: we can not use the similar
> stragegy used in the 2 other users of pci_create_slot():
>
> drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c calls pci_create_slot().
> It looks drivers/pci/hotplug/ is quite different from pci-hyperv.c because
> pci-hyper-v uses a simple *private* hot-plug protocol, making it impossible
> to use the API pci_hp_register() and pci_hp_destroy() -> pci_destroy_slot().
>
> drivers/acpi/pci_slot.c calls pci_create_slot(), and saves the created slots in
> the static "slot_list" list in the same file. Again, since pci-hyper-v uses a private
> PCI-device-discovery protocol (which is based on VMBus rather the emulated
> ACPI and PCI), acpi_pci_slot_enumerate() can not find the PCI devices that are
> discovered by pci-hyperv, so we can not use the standard register_slot() ->
> pci_create_slot() to create the slots and hence acpi_pci_slot_remove() ->
> pci_destroy_slot() can not work for pci-hyperv.
Hmm, ok. This still doesn't seem right to me, but I think the bottom
line will be that the current slot registration interfaces just don't
work quite right for all the cases we want them to.
Maybe it would be a good project for somebody to rethink them, but it
doesn't seem practical for *this* patch. Thanks for looking into it
this far!
> I think I can use this as the v2 changelog:
>
> The slot must be removed before the pci_dev is removed, otherwise a panic
> can happen due to use-after-free.
Sounds good.
Bjorn
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
