[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8GoiCBQNiAuVcNw@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 14:52:56 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
farman@...ux.ibm.com, pmorel@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com,
jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com, zhi.a.wang@...el.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfio: fix potential deadlock on vfio group lock
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:11:32PM -0500, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> @@ -462,9 +520,19 @@ static inline void vfio_device_pm_runtime_put(struct vfio_device *device)
> static int vfio_device_fops_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
> {
> struct vfio_device *device = filep->private_data;
> + struct kvm *kvm = NULL;
>
> vfio_device_group_close(device);
>
> + mutex_lock(&device->dev_set->lock);
> + if (device->open_count == 0 && device->kvm) {
> + kvm = device->kvm;
> + device->kvm = NULL;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&device->dev_set->lock);
This still doesn't seem right, another thread could have incr'd the
open_count already
This has to be done at the moment open_count is decremented to zero,
while still under the original lock.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists