| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140911031026.GI2784@lvm>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:10:26 +0200
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
Cc: eric.auger@...com, marc.zyngier@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
joel.schopp@....com, kim.phillips@...escale.com, paulus@...ba.org,
gleb@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...aro.org, will.deacon@....com,
a.motakis@...tualopensystems.com, a.rigo@...tualopensystems.com,
john.liuli@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 8/9] KVM: KVM-VFIO: generic KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE command
and IRQ forwarding control
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> This patch introduces a new KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE attribute.
>
> This is a new control channel which enables KVM to cooperate with
> viable VFIO devices.
>
> The kvm-vfio device now holds a list of devices (kvm_vfio_device)
> in addition to a list of groups (kvm_vfio_group). The new
> infrastructure enables to check the validity of the VFIO device
> file descriptor, get and hold a reference to it.
>
> The first concrete implemented command is IRQ forward control:
> KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ, KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ.
>
> It consists in programing the VFIO driver and KVM in a consistent manner
> so that an optimized IRQ injection/completion is set up. Each
> kvm_vfio_device holds a list of forwarded IRQ. When putting a
> kvm_vfio_device, the implementation makes sure the forwarded IRQs
> are set again in the normal handling state (non forwarded).
'putting a kvm_vfio_device' sounds to like you're golf'ing :)
When a kvm_vfio_device is released?
>
> The forwarding programmming is architecture specific, embodied by the
> kvm_arch_set_fwd_state function. Its implementation is given in a
> separate patch file.
I would drop the last sentence and instead indicate that this is handled
properly when the architecture does not support such a feature.
>
> The forwarding control modality is enabled by the
> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD define.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
>
> ---
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO renamed into __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> - original patch file separated into 2 parts: generic part moved in vfio.c
> and ARM specific part(kvm_arch_set_fwd_state)
> ---
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 27 +++
> virt/kvm/vfio.c | 452 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 477 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index a4c33b3..24350dc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1065,6 +1065,21 @@ struct kvm_device_ops {
> unsigned long arg);
> };
>
> +enum kvm_fwd_irq_action {
> + KVM_VFIO_IRQ_SET_FORWARD,
> + KVM_VFIO_IRQ_SET_NORMAL,
> + KVM_VFIO_IRQ_CLEANUP,
This is KVM internal API, so it would probably be good to document this.
Especially the CLEANUP bit worries me, see below.
> +};
> +
> +/* internal structure describing a forwarded IRQ */
> +struct kvm_fwd_irq {
> + struct list_head link;
this list entry is local to the kvm vfio device, right? that means you
probably want a struct with just the below fields, and then have a
containing struct in the generic device file, private to it's logic.
> + __u32 index; /* platform device irq index */
> + __u32 hwirq; /*physical IRQ */
> + __u32 gsi; /* virtual IRQ */
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; /* vcpu to inject into*/
> +};
> +
> void kvm_device_get(struct kvm_device *dev);
> void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev);
> struct kvm_device *kvm_device_from_filp(struct file *filp);
> @@ -1075,6 +1090,18 @@ extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_vfio_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_arm_vgic_v2_ops;
> extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_flic_ops;
>
> +#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> +int kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(struct kvm_fwd_irq *pfwd,
what's the 'p' in pfwd?
> + enum kvm_fwd_irq_action action);
> +
> +#else
> +static inline int kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(struct kvm_fwd_irq *pfwd,
> + enum kvm_fwd_irq_action action)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>
> static inline void kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool val)
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/vfio.c b/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> index 76dc7a1..e4a81c4 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> @@ -18,14 +18,24 @@
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <linux/vfio.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>
> struct kvm_vfio_group {
> struct list_head node;
> struct vfio_group *vfio_group;
> };
>
> +struct kvm_vfio_device {
> + struct list_head node;
> + struct vfio_device *vfio_device;
> + /* list of forwarded IRQs for that VFIO device */
> + struct list_head fwd_irq_list;
> + int fd;
> +};
> +
> struct kvm_vfio {
> struct list_head group_list;
> + struct list_head device_list;
> struct mutex lock;
> bool noncoherent;
> };
> @@ -246,12 +256,441 @@ static int kvm_vfio_set_group(struct kvm_device *dev, long attr, u64 arg)
> return -ENXIO;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * get_vfio_device - returns the vfio-device corresponding to this fd
> + * @fd:fd of the vfio platform device
> + *
> + * checks it is a vfio device
> + * increment its ref counter
why the short lines? Just write this out in proper English.
> + */
> +static struct vfio_device *kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device(int fd)
> +{
> + struct fd f;
> + struct vfio_device *vdev;
> +
> + f = fdget(fd);
> + if (!f.file)
> + return NULL;
> + vdev = kvm_vfio_device_get_external_user(f.file);
> + fdput(f);
> + return vdev;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * put_vfio_device: put the vfio platform device
> + * @vdev: vfio_device to put
> + *
> + * decrement the ref counter
> + */
> +static void kvm_vfio_put_vfio_device(struct vfio_device *vdev)
> +{
> + kvm_vfio_device_put_external_user(vdev);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vfio_find_device - look for the device in the assigned
> + * device list
> + * @kv: the kvm-vfio device
> + * @vdev: the vfio_device to look for
> + *
> + * returns the associated kvm_vfio_device if the device is known,
> + * meaning at least 1 IRQ is forwarded for this device.
> + * in the device is not registered, returns NULL.
> + */
are these functions meant to be exported? Otherwise they should be
static, and the documentation on these simple list iteration wrappers
seems like overkill imho.
> +struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vfio_find_device(struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> + struct vfio_device *vdev)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev_iter;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(kvm_vdev_iter, &kv->device_list, node) {
> + if (kvm_vdev_iter->vfio_device == vdev)
> + return kvm_vdev_iter;
> + }
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vfio_find_irq - look for a an irq in the device IRQ list
> + * @kvm_vdev: the kvm_vfio_device
> + * @irq_index: irq index
> + *
> + * returns the forwarded irq struct if it exists, NULL in the negative
> + */
> +struct kvm_fwd_irq *kvm_vfio_find_irq(struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev,
> + int irq_index)
> +{
> + struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd_irq_iter;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(fwd_irq_iter, &kvm_vdev->fwd_irq_list, link) {
> + if (fwd_irq_iter->index == irq_index)
> + return fwd_irq_iter;
> + }
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * validate_forward - checks whether forwarding a given IRQ is meaningful
> + * @vdev: vfio_device the IRQ belongs to
> + * @fwd_irq: user struct containing the irq_index to forward
> + * @kvm_vdev: if a forwarded IRQ already exists for that VFIO device,
> + * kvm_vfio_device that holds it
> + * @hwirq: irq numberthe irq index corresponds to
> + *
> + * checks the vfio-device is a platform vfio device
> + * checks the irq_index corresponds to an actual hwirq and
> + * checks this hwirq is not already forwarded
> + * returns < 0 on following errors:
> + * not a platform device, bad irq index, already forwarded
> + */
> +static int kvm_vfio_validate_forward(struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> + struct vfio_device *vdev,
> + struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq *fwd_irq,
> + struct kvm_vfio_device **kvm_vdev,
> + int *hwirq)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = kvm_vfio_external_base_device(vdev);
> + struct platform_device *platdev;
> +
> + *hwirq = -1;
> + *kvm_vdev = NULL;
> + if (strcmp(dev->bus->name, "platform") == 0) {
> + platdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> + *hwirq = platform_get_irq(platdev, fwd_irq->index);
> + if (*hwirq < 0) {
> + kvm_err("%s incorrect index\n", __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else {
> + kvm_err("%s not a platform device\n", __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
need some spaceing here, also, I would turn this around, first check if
the strcmp fails, and then error out, then do you next check etc., to
avoid so many nested statements.
> + /* is a ref to this device already owned by the KVM-VFIO device? */
this comment is not particularly helpful in its current form, it would
be helpful if you specified that we're checking whether that particular
device/irq combo is already registered.
> + *kvm_vdev = kvm_vfio_find_device(kv, vdev);
> + if (*kvm_vdev) {
> + if (kvm_vfio_find_irq(*kvm_vdev, fwd_irq->index)) {
> + kvm_err("%s irq %d already forwarded\n",
> + __func__, *hwirq);
don't flood the kernel log because of a user error, just allocate an
error code for this purpose and document it in the ABI, -EEXIST or
something.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * validate_unforward: check a deassignment is meaningful
> + * @kv: the kvm_vfio device
> + * @vdev: the vfio_device whose irq to deassign belongs to
> + * @fwd_irq: the user struct that contains the fd and irq_index of the irq
> + * @kvm_vdev: the kvm_vfio_device the forwarded irq belongs to, if
> + * it exists
> + *
> + * returns 0 if the provided irq effectively is forwarded
> + * (a ref to this vfio_device is hold and this irq belongs to
held
> + * the forwarded irq of this device)
> + * returns -EINVAL in the negative
ENOENT should be returned if you don't have an entry.
EINVAL could be used if you supply an fd that isn't a
VFIO device file descriptor, for example. Again,
consider documenting all this in the API.
> + */
> +static int kvm_vfio_validate_unforward(struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> + struct vfio_device *vdev,
> + struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq *fwd_irq,
> + struct kvm_vfio_device **kvm_vdev)
> +{
> + struct kvm_fwd_irq *pfwd;
> +
> + *kvm_vdev = kvm_vfio_find_device(kv, vdev);
> + if (!kvm_vdev) {
> + kvm_err("%s no forwarded irq for this device\n", __func__);
don't flood the kernel log
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + pfwd = kvm_vfio_find_irq(*kvm_vdev, fwd_irq->index);
> + if (!pfwd) {
> + kvm_err("%s irq %d is not forwarded\n", __func__, fwd_irq->fd);
> + return -EINVAL;
same here
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vfio_forward - set a forwarded IRQ
> + * @kdev: the kvm device
> + * @vdev: the vfio device the IRQ belongs to
> + * @fwd_irq: the user struct containing the irq_index and guest irq
> + * @must_put: tells the caller whether the vfio_device must be put after
> + * the call (ref must be released in case a ref onto this device was
> + * already hold or in case of new device and failure)
> + *
> + * validate the injection, activate forward and store the information
Validate
> + * about which irq and which device is concerned so that on deassign or
> + * kvm-vfio destruction everuthing can be cleaned up.
everything
I'm not sure I understand this explanation. Do we have concerned
devices?
I think you want to say something along the lines of: If userspace passed
a valid vfio device and irq handle and the architecture supports
forwarding this combination, register the vfio_device and irq
combination in the ....
> + */
> +static int kvm_vfio_forward(struct kvm_device *kdev,
> + struct vfio_device *vdev,
> + struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq *fwd_irq,
> + bool *must_put)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct kvm_fwd_irq *pfwd = NULL;
> + struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev = NULL;
> + struct kvm_vfio *kv = kdev->private;
> + int hwirq;
> +
> + *must_put = true;
> + ret = kvm_vfio_validate_forward(kv, vdev, fwd_irq,
> + &kvm_vdev, &hwirq);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + pfwd = kzalloc(sizeof(*pfwd), GFP_KERNEL);
seems a bit pointless to zero-out the memory if you're setting all
fields below.
> + if (!pfwd)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + pfwd->index = fwd_irq->index;
> + pfwd->gsi = fwd_irq->gsi;
> + pfwd->hwirq = hwirq;
> + pfwd->vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kdev->kvm, 0);
> + ret = kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(pfwd, KVM_VFIO_IRQ_SET_FORWARD);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(pfwd, KVM_VFIO_IRQ_CLEANUP);
this whole thing feels incredibly broken to me. Setting a forward
should either work or not work, not something in between that leaves
something to be cleaned up. Why this two-stage thingy here?
> + kfree(pfwd);
probably want to move your free-and-return-error to the end of the
function.
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (!kvm_vdev) {
> + /* create & insert the new device and keep the ref */
> + kvm_vdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*kvm_vdev), GFP_KERNEL);
again, no need for zeroing out the memory.
> + if (!kvm_vdev) {
> + kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(pfwd, false);
> + kfree(pfwd);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + kvm_vdev->vfio_device = vdev;
> + kvm_vdev->fd = fwd_irq->fd;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm_vdev->fwd_irq_list);
> + list_add(&kvm_vdev->node, &kv->device_list);
> + /*
> + * the only case where we keep the ref:
> + * new device and forward setting successful
> + */
> + *must_put = false;
> + }
> +
> + list_add(&pfwd->link, &kvm_vdev->fwd_irq_list);
> +
> + kvm_debug("forwarding set for fd=%d, hwirq=%d, gsi=%d\n",
> + fwd_irq->fd, hwirq, fwd_irq->gsi);
please indent this to align with the opening parenthesis.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * remove_assigned_device - put a given device from the list
this isn't a 'put', at least not *just* a put.
> + * @kv: the kvm-vfio device
> + * @vdev: the vfio-device to remove
> + *
> + * change the state of all forwarded IRQs, free the forwarded IRQ list,
> + * remove the corresponding kvm_vfio_device from the assigned device
> + * list.
> + * returns true if the device could be removed, false in the negative
> + */
> +bool remove_assigned_device(struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> + struct vfio_device *vdev)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev_iter, *tmp_vdev;
> + struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd_irq_iter, *tmp_irq;
> + bool removed = false;
> + int ret;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(kvm_vdev_iter, tmp_vdev,
> + &kv->device_list, node) {
> + if (kvm_vdev_iter->vfio_device == vdev) {
> + /* loop on all its forwarded IRQ */
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(fwd_irq_iter, tmp_irq,
> + &kvm_vdev_iter->fwd_irq_list,
> + link) {
hmm, seems this function is only called when you have no more forwarded
IRQs, so isn't all of this completely dead (and unnecessary) code?
> + ret = kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(fwd_irq_iter,
> + KVM_VFIO_IRQ_SET_NORMAL);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
you're returning an error code to a bool function, which means you'll
return true when there was an error. Is this your intention? ;)
if we have an error here, this would be a very very bad situation wouldn't it?
> + list_del(&fwd_irq_iter->link);
> + kfree(fwd_irq_iter);
> + }
> + /* all IRQs could be deassigned */
> + list_del(&kvm_vdev_iter->node);
> + kvm_vfio_device_put_external_user(
> + kvm_vdev_iter->vfio_device);
> + kfree(kvm_vdev_iter);
> + removed = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + return removed;
> +}
> +
> +
> +/**
> + * remove_fwd_irq - remove a forwarded irq
> + *
> + * @kv: kvm-vfio device
> + * kvm_vdev: the kvm_vfio_device the IRQ belongs to
> + * irq_index: the index of the IRQ
> + *
> + * change the forwarded state of the IRQ, remove the IRQ from
> + * the device forwarded IRQ list. In case it is the last one,
> + * put the device
> + */
> +int remove_fwd_irq(struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> + struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev,
> + int irq_index)
> +{
> + struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd_irq_iter, *tmp_irq;
> + int ret = -1;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(fwd_irq_iter, tmp_irq,
> + &kvm_vdev->fwd_irq_list, link) {
hmmm, you can only forward one irq for a specific device once, right?
And you already have a lookup function, so why not call that, and then
remove it?
I'm confused.
> + if (fwd_irq_iter->index == irq_index) {
> + ret = kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(fwd_irq_iter,
> + KVM_VFIO_IRQ_SET_NORMAL);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + break;
> + list_del(&fwd_irq_iter->link);
> + kfree(fwd_irq_iter);
> + ret = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (list_empty(&kvm_vdev->fwd_irq_list))
> + remove_assigned_device(kv, kvm_vdev->vfio_device);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vfio_unforward - remove a forwarded IRQ
> + * @kdev: the kvm device
> + * @vdev: the vfio_device
> + * @fwd_irq: user struct
> + * after checking this IRQ effectively is forwarded, change its state,
> + * remove it from the corresponding kvm_vfio_device list
> + */
> +static int kvm_vfio_unforward(struct kvm_device *kdev,
> + struct vfio_device *vdev,
> + struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq *fwd_irq)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vfio *kv = kdev->private;
> + struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = kvm_vfio_validate_unforward(kv, vdev, fwd_irq, &kvm_vdev);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
why do you override the return value? Propagate it.
> +
> + ret = remove_fwd_irq(kv, kvm_vdev, fwd_irq->index);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + kvm_err("%s fail unforwarding (fd=%d, index=%d)\n",
> + __func__, fwd_irq->fd, fwd_irq->index);
> + else
> + kvm_debug("%s unforwarding IRQ (fd=%d, index=%d)\n",
> + __func__, fwd_irq->fd, fwd_irq->index);
again with the kernel log here.
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +
> +
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vfio_set_device - the top function for interracting with a vfio
top? interacting
> + * device
> + */
probably just skip this comment
> +static int kvm_vfio_set_device(struct kvm_device *kdev, long attr, u64 arg)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vfio *kv = kdev->private;
> + struct vfio_device *vdev;
> + struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq fwd_irq; /* user struct */
> + int32_t __user *argp = (int32_t __user *)(unsigned long)arg;
> +
> + switch (attr) {
> +#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> + case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ:{
> + bool must_put;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(&fwd_irq, argp, sizeof(fwd_irq)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + vdev = kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device(fwd_irq.fd);
> + if (IS_ERR(vdev))
> + return PTR_ERR(vdev);
seems like this whole block of code is replicated below, needs
refactoring.
> + mutex_lock(&kv->lock);
> + ret = kvm_vfio_forward(kdev, vdev, &fwd_irq, &must_put);
> + if (must_put)
> + kvm_vfio_put_vfio_device(vdev);
this must_put looks plain weird. I think you want to balance your
get/put's always; can't you just get an extra reference in
kvm_vfio_forward() ?
> + mutex_unlock(&kv->lock);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ: {
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(&fwd_irq, argp, sizeof(fwd_irq)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + vdev = kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device(fwd_irq.fd);
> + if (IS_ERR(vdev))
> + return PTR_ERR(vdev);
> +
> + kvm_vfio_device_put_external_user(vdev);
you're dropping the reference to the device but referencing it in your
unfoward call below?
> + mutex_lock(&kv->lock);
> + ret = kvm_vfio_unforward(kdev, vdev, &fwd_irq);
> + mutex_unlock(&kv->lock);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +#endif
> + default:
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vfio_put_all_devices - cancel forwarded IRQs and put all devices
> + * @kv: kvm-vfio device
> + *
> + * loop on all got devices and their associated forwarded IRQs
'loop on all got' ?
Restore the non-forwarded state for all registered devices and ...
> + * restore the non forwarded state, remove IRQs and their devices from
> + * the respective list, put the vfio platform devices
> + *
> + * When this function is called, the vcpu already are destroyed. No
the VPUCs are already destroyed.
> + * vgic manipulation can happen hence the KVM_VFIO_IRQ_CLEANUP
> + * kvm_arch_set_fwd_state action
this last bit didn't make any sense to me. Also, why are we referring
to the vgic in generic code?
> + */
> +int kvm_vfio_put_all_devices(struct kvm_vfio *kv)
> +{
> + struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd_irq_iter, *tmp_irq;
> + struct kvm_vfio_device *kvm_vdev_iter, *tmp_vdev;
> +
> + /* loop on all the assigned devices */
unnecessary comment
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(kvm_vdev_iter, tmp_vdev,
> + &kv->device_list, node) {
> +
> + /* loop on all its forwarded IRQ */
same
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(fwd_irq_iter, tmp_irq,
> + &kvm_vdev_iter->fwd_irq_list, link) {
> + kvm_arch_set_fwd_state(fwd_irq_iter,
> + KVM_VFIO_IRQ_CLEANUP);
> + list_del(&fwd_irq_iter->link);
> + kfree(fwd_irq_iter);
> + }
> + list_del(&kvm_vdev_iter->node);
> + kvm_vfio_device_put_external_user(kvm_vdev_iter->vfio_device);
> + kfree(kvm_vdev_iter);
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> static int kvm_vfio_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> {
> switch (attr->group) {
> case KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP:
> return kvm_vfio_set_group(dev, attr->attr, attr->addr);
> + case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE:
> + return kvm_vfio_set_device(dev, attr->attr, attr->addr);
> }
>
> return -ENXIO;
> @@ -267,10 +706,17 @@ static int kvm_vfio_has_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> case KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_DEL:
> return 0;
> }
> -
> break;
> +#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> + case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE:
> + switch (attr->attr) {
> + case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ:
> + case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ:
> + return 0;
> + }
> + break;
> +#endif
> }
> -
> return -ENXIO;
> }
>
> @@ -284,6 +730,7 @@ static void kvm_vfio_destroy(struct kvm_device *dev)
> list_del(&kvg->node);
> kfree(kvg);
> }
> + kvm_vfio_put_all_devices(kv);
>
> kvm_vfio_update_coherency(dev);
>
> @@ -306,6 +753,7 @@ static int kvm_vfio_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kv->group_list);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kv->device_list);
> mutex_init(&kv->lock);
>
> dev->private = kv;
> --
> 1.9.1
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists