Hello Ethan,

On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 09:55:05AM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> On 8/4/2025 5:17 PM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Similarly to pci_dev_aer_stats_incr(), pci_print_aer() may be called
> > when dev->aer_info is NULL. Add a NULL check before proceeding to avoid
> > calling aer_ratelimit() with a NULL aer_info pointer, returning 1, which
> > does not rate limit, given this is fatal.
> > 
> > This prevents a kernel crash triggered by dereferencing a NULL pointer
> > in aer_ratelimit(), ensuring safer handling of PCI devices that lack
> > AER info. This change aligns pci_print_aer() with pci_dev_aer_stats_incr()
> > which already performs this NULL check.
> > 
> The enqueue side has lock to protect the ring, but the dequeue side no lock
> held.
> 
> The kfifo_get in
> static void aer_recover_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> ...
> while (kfifo_get(&aer_recover_ring, &entry)) {
> ...
> }
> should be replaced by
> kfifo_out_spinlocked()

The design seems not to need the lock on the reader side. There is just
one reader, which is the aer_recover_work. aer_recover_work runs
aer_recover_work_func(). So, if we just have one reader, we do not need
to protect the kfifo by spinlock, right?

In fact, the code documents it in the aer_recover_ring_lock.

        /*
        * Mutual exclusion for writers of aer_recover_ring, reader side don't
        * need lock, because there is only one reader and lock is not needed
        * between reader and writer.
        */
        static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(aer_recover_ring_lock);

Reply via email to