Date:   Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:48:22 +0000
From:   Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:     "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2 2/5] vfio/type1: Check reserve region conflict and
 update iova list



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@...hat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:05 AM
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
> Cc: eric.auger@...hat.com; pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com;
> kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Linuxarm
> <linuxarm@...wei.com>; John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>; xuwei (O)
> <xuwei5@...wei.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/5] vfio/type1: Check reserve region conflict and update
> iova list
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:45:28 +0000
> Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> > This retrieves the reserved regions associated with dev group and
> > checks for conflicts with any existing dma mappings. Also update
> > the iova list excluding the reserved regions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 161
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index 11cbd49..7609070 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/device.h>
> >  #include <linux/fs.h>
> >  #include <linux/iommu.h>
> > +#include <linux/list_sort.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/mm.h>
> >  #include <linux/rbtree.h>
> > @@ -1199,6 +1200,20 @@ static bool vfio_iommu_has_sw_msi(struct
> iommu_group *group, phys_addr_t *base)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >
> 
> /* list_sort helper */
> 
> > +static int vfio_resv_cmp(void *priv, struct list_head *a, struct list_head *b)
> > +{
> > +	struct iommu_resv_region *ra, *rb;
> > +
> > +	ra = container_of(a, struct iommu_resv_region, list);
> > +	rb = container_of(b, struct iommu_resv_region, list);
> > +
> > +	if (ra->start < rb->start)
> > +		return -1;
> > +	if (ra->start > rb->start)
> > +		return 1;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int vfio_insert_iova(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
> >  				struct list_head *head)
> >  {
> > @@ -1274,6 +1289,24 @@ static int vfio_iommu_valid_aperture(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > + * Check reserved region conflicts with existing dma mappings
> > + */
> > +static int vfio_iommu_resv_region_conflict(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > +				struct list_head *resv_regions)
> > +{
> > +	struct iommu_resv_region *region;
> > +
> > +	/* Check for conflict with existing dma mappings */
> > +	list_for_each_entry(region, resv_regions, list) {
> > +		if (vfio_find_dma_overlap(iommu, region->start,
> > +				    region->start + region->length - 1))
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> This basically does the same test as vfio_iommu_valid_aperture but
> properly names it a conflict test.  Please be consistent.  Should this
> also return bool, "conflict" is a yes/no answer.

Ok.
 
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * Adjust the iommu aperture window if new aperture is a valid one
> >   */
> >  static int vfio_iommu_iova_aper_adjust(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > @@ -1316,6 +1349,51 @@ static int vfio_iommu_iova_aper_adjust(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Check and update iova region list in case a reserved region
> > + * overlaps the iommu iova range
> > + */
> > +static int vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > +					struct list_head *resv_regions)
> 
> "resv_region" in previous function, just "resv" here, use consistent
> names.  Also, what are we adjusting.  Maybe "exclude" is a better term.

Ok.

> > +{
> > +	struct iommu_resv_region *resv;
> > +	struct list_head *iova = &iommu->iova_list;
> > +	struct vfio_iova *n, *next;
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry(resv, resv_regions, list) {
> > +		phys_addr_t start, end;
> > +
> > +		start = resv->start;
> > +		end = resv->start + resv->length - 1;
> > +
> > +		list_for_each_entry_safe(n, next, iova, list) {
> > +			phys_addr_t a, b;
> > +			int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +			a = n->start;
> > +			b = n->end;
> 
> 'a' and 'b' variables actually make this incredibly confusing.  Use
> better variable names or just drop them entirely, it's much easier to
> follow as n->start & n->end.

I will drop the name and go with  n->start & n->end.
 
> > +			/* No overlap */
> > +			if ((start > b) || (end < a))
> > +				continue;
> > +			/* Split the current node and create holes */
> > +			if (start > a)
> > +				ret = vfio_insert_iova(a, start - 1, &n->list);
> > +			if (!ret && end < b)
> > +				ret = vfio_insert_iova(end + 1, b, &n->list);
> > +			if (ret)
> > +				return ret;
> > +
> > +			list_del(&n->list);
> 
> This is trickier than it appears and deserves some explanation.  AIUI,
> we're actually inserting duplicate entries for the remainder at the
> start of the range and then at the end of the range (and the order is
> important here because we're inserting each before the current node),
> and then we delete the current node.  So the iova_list is kept sorted
> through this process, though temporarily includes some bogus, unordered
> sub-sets.

Yes. That understanding is correct. I will add comments to make it clear.

> > +			kfree(n);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (list_empty(iova))
> > +		return -EINVAL;

The above is also not correct. The list cannot be empty. I think as you
said below, need to work on a copy.

> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
> >  					 struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> >  {
> > @@ -1327,6 +1405,8 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >  	bool resv_msi, msi_remap;
> >  	phys_addr_t resv_msi_base;
> >  	struct iommu_domain_geometry geo;
> > +	struct list_head group_resv_regions;
> > +	struct iommu_resv_region *resv, *resv_next;
> >
> >  	mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> >
> > @@ -1404,6 +1484,14 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto out_detach;
> >
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&group_resv_regions);
> > +	iommu_get_group_resv_regions(iommu_group, &group_resv_regions);
> > +	list_sort(NULL, &group_resv_regions, vfio_resv_cmp);
> > +
> > +	ret = vfio_iommu_resv_region_conflict(iommu, &group_resv_regions);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out_detach;
> > +
> >  	resv_msi = vfio_iommu_has_sw_msi(iommu_group, &resv_msi_base);
> >
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list);
> > @@ -1434,11 +1522,15 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >  		    d->prot == domain->prot) {
> >  			iommu_detach_group(domain->domain,
> iommu_group);
> >  			if (!iommu_attach_group(d->domain, iommu_group)) {
> > +				ret = vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(iommu,
> > +
> 	&group_resv_regions);
> > +				if (!ret)
> > +					goto out_domain;
> 
> The above function is not without side effects if it fails, it's
> altered the iova_list.  It needs to be valid for the remaining domains
> if we're going to continue.
> 
> > +
> >  				list_add(&group->next, &d->group_list);
> >  				iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> >  				kfree(domain);
> > -				mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> > -				return 0;
> > +				goto done;
> >  			}
> >
> >  			ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain,
> iommu_group);
> > @@ -1465,8 +1557,15 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto out_detach;
> >
> > +	ret = vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(iommu, &group_resv_regions);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out_detach;
> 
> Can't we process the reserved regions once before we get here rather
> than have two separate call points that do the same thing?  In order to
> roll back from errors above, it seems like we need to copy iova_list
> and work on the copy, installing it and deleting the original only on
> success.

Correct. In case of error, the iova list needs to be rolled back to previous
state. Yes, it looks like have to work on a copy. I will address this in next
revision.
 
> > +
> >  	list_add(&domain->next, &iommu->domain_list);
> >
> > +done:
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &group_resv_regions, list)
> > +		kfree(resv);
> >  	mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> >
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -1475,6 +1574,8 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >  	iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, iommu_group);
> >  out_domain:
> >  	iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &group_resv_regions, list)
> > +		kfree(resv);
> >  out_free:
> >  	kfree(domain);
> >  	kfree(group);
> > @@ -1559,6 +1660,60 @@ static void vfio_iommu_iova_aper_refresh(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu)
> >  	node->end = end;
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Called when a group is detached. The reserved regions for that
> > + * group can be part of valid iova now. But since reserved regions
> > + * may be duplicated among groups, populate the iova valid regions
> > +   list again.
> > + */
> > +static void vfio_iommu_iova_resv_refresh(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
> > +{
> > +	struct vfio_domain *d;
> > +	struct vfio_group *g;
> > +	struct vfio_iova *node, *tmp;
> > +	struct iommu_resv_region *resv, *resv_next;
> > +	struct list_head resv_regions;
> > +	phys_addr_t start, end;
> > +
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resv_regions);
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry(d, &iommu->domain_list, next) {
> > +		list_for_each_entry(g, &d->group_list, next)
> > +			iommu_get_group_resv_regions(g->iommu_group,
> > +							 &resv_regions);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (list_empty(&resv_regions))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	list_sort(NULL, &resv_regions, vfio_resv_cmp);
> > +
> > +	node = list_first_entry(&iommu->iova_list, struct vfio_iova, list);
> > +	start = node->start;
> > +	node = list_last_entry(&iommu->iova_list, struct vfio_iova, list);
> > +	end = node->end;
> 
> list_sort() only sorts based on ->start, we added reserved regions for
> all our groups to one list, we potentially have multiple entries with
> the same ->start.  How can we be sure that the last one in the list
> actually has the largest ->end value?

Hmm.. the sorting is done on the reserved list. The start and end entries 
are of the iova list which is kept updated on _attach(). So I don't think
there is a problem here.

> > +
> > +	/* purge the iova list and create new one */
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(node, tmp, &iommu->iova_list, list) {
> > +		list_del(&node->list);
> > +		kfree(node);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (vfio_iommu_iova_aper_adjust(iommu, start, end)) {
> > +		pr_warn("%s: Failed to update iova aperture. VFIO DMA map
> request may fail\n",
> > +			__func__);
> 
> Map requests "will" fail.  Is this the right error strategy?  Detaching
> a group cannot fail.  Aren't we better off leaving the iova_list we had
> in place?  If we cannot expand the iova aperture when a group is
> removed, a user can continue unscathed.

Ok. I think that's a better strategy rather than trying to update the iova list
here. I will remove this.

Thanks,
Shameer

> > +		goto done;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* adjust the iova with current reserved regions */
> > +	if (vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(iommu, &resv_regions))
> > +		pr_warn("%s: Failed to update iova list with reserve regions.
> VFIO DMA map request may fail\n",
> > +			__func__);
> 
> Same.
> 
> > +done:
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &resv_regions, list)
> > +		kfree(resv);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
> >  					  struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> >  {
> > @@ -1617,6 +1772,8 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >  		break;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	vfio_iommu_iova_resv_refresh(iommu);
> > +
> >  detach_group_done:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> >  }

Powered by blists - more mailing lists