On 10/09/2019 08:31 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:06:46PM -0400, Don Dutile wrote:
On 10/08/2019 05:38 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:10:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:04:45AM +0200, CREGUT Pierre IMT/OLN wrote:
...

NIC drivers send netlink events when their state change, but it is
the core that changes the value of num_vfs. So I would think it is
the core responsibility to make sure the exposed value makes sense
and it would be better to ignore the details of the driver
implementation.

Yes, I think you're right.  And I like your previous suggestion of
just locking the device in the reader.  I'm not enough of a sysfs
expert to know if there's a good reason to avoid a lock there.  Does
the following look reasonable to you?

I applied the patch below to pci/virtualization for v5.5, thanks for
I hope not... see below

your great patience!

commit 0940fc95da45
Author: Pierre Crégut <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed Sep 11 09:27:36 2019 +0200

      PCI/IOV: Serialize sysfs sriov_numvfs reads vs writes
      When sriov_numvfs is being updated, drivers may notify about new devices
      before they are reflected in sriov->num_VFs, so concurrent sysfs reads
      previously returned stale values.
      Serialize the sysfs read vs the write so the read returns the correct
      num_VFs value.
      Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202991
      Link: 
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
      Signed-off-by: Pierre Crégut <[email protected]>
      Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>

diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
index b3f972e8cfed..e77562aabbae 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
@@ -254,8 +254,14 @@ static ssize_t sriov_numvfs_show(struct device *dev,
                                 char *buf)
   {
        struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
+       u16 num_vfs;
+
+       /* Serialize vs sriov_numvfs_store() so readers see valid num_VFs */
+       device_lock(&pdev->dev);
                ^^^^^ lock
+       num_vfs = pdev->sriov->num_VFs;
+       device_lock(&pdev->dev);
                ^^^^ and lock again!

Oops, sorry, my fault.  Fixed.

Thanks.
--dd

-       return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", pdev->sriov->num_VFs);
+       return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", num_vfs);
   }
   /*


Reply via email to