[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210927150119.GB964074@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:01:19 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
Cc: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"mgurtovoy@...dia.com" <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
liulongfang <liulongfang@...wei.com>,
"Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
"Wangzhou (B)" <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] hisi_acc_vfio_pci: Add support for VFIO live
migration
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 01:46:31PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> > > > Nope, this is locked wrong and has no lifetime management.
> > >
> > > Ok. Holding the device_lock() sufficient here?
> >
> > You can't hold a hisi_qm pointer with some kind of lifecycle
> > management of that pointer. device_lock/etc is necessary to call
> > pci_get_drvdata()
>
> Since this migration driver only supports VF devices and the PF
> driver will not be removed until all the VF devices gets removed,
> is the locking necessary here?
Oh.. That is really busted up. pci_sriov_disable() is called under the
device_lock(pf) and obtains the device_lock(vf).
This means a VF driver can never use the device_lock(pf), otherwise it
can deadlock itself if PF removal triggers VF removal.
But you can't access these members without using the device_lock(), as
there really are no safety guarentees..
The mlx5 patches have this same sketchy problem.
We may need a new special function 'pci_get_sriov_pf_devdata()' that
confirms the vf/pf relationship and explicitly interlocks with the
pci_sriov_enable/disable instead of using device_lock()
Leon, what do you think?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists