linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree with the vfio-fixes tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:40:02 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jike Song <jike.song@...el.com>,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree with the
 vfio-fixes tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel-fixes tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c

between commit:

  99e3123e3d72 ("vfio-mdev: Make mdev_device private and abstract interfaces")

from the vfio-fixes tree and commit:

  364fb6b789ff ("drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt: prevent double-release of vgpu")

from the drm-intel-fixes tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index f8021a01df63,934963970288..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@@ -497,10 -500,19 +500,19 @@@ static int intel_vgpu_open(struct mdev_
  		goto undo_iommu;
  	}
  
- 	return kvmgt_guest_init(mdev);
+ 	ret = kvmgt_guest_init(mdev);
+ 	if (ret)
+ 		goto undo_group;
+ 
+ 	atomic_set(&vgpu->vdev.released, 0);
+ 	return ret;
+ 
+ undo_group:
+ 	vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
+ 					&vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
  
  undo_iommu:
 -	vfio_unregister_notifier(&mdev->dev, VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY,
 +	vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY,
  					&vgpu->vdev.iommu_notifier);
  out:
  	return ret;
@@@ -513,10 -526,16 +526,16 @@@ static void __intel_vgpu_release(struc
  	if (!handle_valid(vgpu->handle))
  		return;
  
- 	vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY,
+ 	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&vgpu->vdev.released, 0, 1))
+ 		return;
+ 
 -	ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(&vgpu->vdev.mdev->dev, VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY,
++	ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY,
  					&vgpu->vdev.iommu_notifier);
- 	vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
+ 	WARN(ret, "vfio_unregister_notifier for iommu failed: %d\n", ret);
+ 
 -	ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(&vgpu->vdev.mdev->dev, VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
++	ret = vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev), VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY,
  					&vgpu->vdev.group_notifier);
+ 	WARN(ret, "vfio_unregister_notifier for group failed: %d\n", ret);
  
  	info = (struct kvmgt_guest_info *)vgpu->handle;
  	kvmgt_guest_exit(info);