Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] PCI: Refuse function reset of an SR-IOV PF with enabled VFs
Samiullah Khawaja <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 10:53:19PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>pci_reset_function() and its locked and try variants are intended to
>provide a function-scoped reset. The bus and slot methods supporting
>this interface refuse when sibling or subordinate devices are present.
>SR-IOV VFs however, are not currently considered in this scope.
>
>Correct this oversight by testing for non-zero VF count in calls
>through the pci_reset_function() interfaces. This test needs to occur
>under device_lock to avoid races with .sriov_configure. It should
>also occur before pci_dev_save_and_disable() to avoid calling
>potentially destructive reset hooks. Tests are therefore added
>to each of pci_reset_function(), pci_reset_function_locked(), and
>pci_try_reset_function().
>
>The __pci_reset_function_locked() interface remains a low-level
>primitive depending on the caller to perform such tests as necessary.
>The vfio_pci_core use case of __pci_reset_function_locked() is pulled
>through with this test. Other use cases, such as xen-pciback, that
>don't obviously support or prevent binding to SR-IOV enabled PFs will
>need to decide whether VFs are possible and can be preserved.
>Additionally, direct callers of sriov_enable() that do not hold
>device_lock (lpfc) are considered a preexisting, non-compliance issue.
>
>Fixes: dd7cc44d0bce ("PCI: add SR-IOV API for Physical Function driver")
>Cc: [email protected]
>Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-8
>Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
>---
> drivers/pci/pci.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c | 4 +++-
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
[snip]
>index 3f11a9624b9c..9757b171791c 100644
>--- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
>+++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
nit: This probably needs to be a different patch.
>@@ -790,7 +790,9 @@ void vfio_pci_core_disable(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
> if (bridge && !pci_dev_trylock(bridge))
> goto out_restore_state;
> if (pci_dev_trylock(pdev)) {
>- if (!__pci_reset_function_locked(pdev))
>+ /* Enforce function scope under lock for SR-IOV PFs */
>+ if (!pci_num_vf(pdev) &&
>+ !__pci_reset_function_locked(pdev))
> vdev->needs_reset = false;
> pci_dev_unlock(pdev);
> }
I was worried that this would fall into pci_restore_state() and disable
sriov, but it doesn't since there is a check in pci_restore_iov_state()
that skips disabling sriov if VFs are enabled.
Do you think we should skip the pci_restore_state() in general?
>--
>2.53.0
>