[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8G8eNhmjc1QK4tC@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 16:18:00 -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 03:09:01PM -0500, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hmm.. Fair. Well, we can go back to clearing of device->kvm in
> vfio_device_last_close but the group lock is held then so we can't
> immediately do the kvm_put at that time -- unless we go back to the
> notion of stacking the kvm_put on a workqueue, but now from vfio.
> If we do that, I think we also have to scrap the idea of putting the
> kvm_put_kvm function pointer into device->put_kvm too (or otherwise
> stash it along with the kvm value to be picked up by the scheduled
> work).
Well, you have to keep the same sort of design, the
vfio_device_last_close() has to put the kvm on the stack until the
group lock is unlocked.
It is messy due to how the functions are nested, but not hard.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists