lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.4 119/268] xen/pirq: fix error path cleanup when binding MSIs
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 07:48:50PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 09:19 +0000, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > From: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit 910f8befdf5bccf25287d9f1743e3e546bcb7ce0 ]
> >
> > Current cleanup in the error path of xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq is
> > wrong. First of all there's an off-by-one in the cleanup loop, which
> > can lead to unbinding wrong IRQs.
> >
> > Secondly IRQs not bound won't be freed, thus leaking IRQ numbers.
> >
> > Note that there's no need to differentiate between bound and unbound
> > IRQs when freeing them, __unbind_from_irq will deal with both of them
> > correctly.
>
> It appears to me that it is safe to call __unbind_from_irq() after
> xen_irq_info_common_setup() fails, but *not* if the latter hasn't been
> called at all. In that case the IRQ type will still be set to
> IRQT_UNBOUND and this will trigger the BUG_ON() in __unbind_from_irq().
>
> [...]
> > --- a/drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
> > @@ -764,8 +764,8 @@ out:
> >   mutex_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> >   return irq;
> >  error_irq:
> > - for (; i >= 0; i--)
> > - __unbind_from_irq(irq + i);
> > + while (nvec--)
> > + __unbind_from_irq(irq + nvec);
>
> If nvec > 1, and xen_irq_info_pirq_setup() fails for i != nvec - 1,
> then we reach here without having called xen_irq_info_common_setup()
> for all these IRQs.
>
> In that case, I think we will still want to call xen_free_irq() for all
> IRQs. So maybe the fix would be to remove the BUG_ON() in
> __unbind_from_irq()?

I think your analysis is right, and I agree that removing the BUG_ON
from __unbind_from_irq seems like the right solution.

I can't see any issues from calling xen_free_irq with type ==
IRQT_UNBOUND, but I've already attempted to fix this once and failed,
so I would like to get second opinions. Also I'm not sure of the
reason behind that BUG_ON.

Roger.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-14 10:22    [W:0.063 / U:1.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site