[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b52ffdb-c18c-f3d4-559d-9838419e2bc7@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 09:42:49 -0500
From: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"farman@...ux.ibm.com" <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
"pmorel@...ux.ibm.com" <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
"borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com" <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
"frankja@...ux.ibm.com" <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
"imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com" <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com" <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
"jjherne@...ux.ibm.com" <jjherne@...ux.ibm.com>,
"pasic@...ux.ibm.com" <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
"zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com" <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
"Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>,
"Christopherson, , Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: fix deadlock between group lock and kvm lock
On 2/1/23 7:43 AM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 4:26 AM
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 03:06:35PM -0500, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>>> @@ -799,13 +794,14 @@
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_file_enforced_coherent);
>>> void vfio_file_set_kvm(struct file *file, struct kvm *kvm)
>>> {
>>> struct vfio_group *group = file->private_data;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>
>>> if (!vfio_file_is_group(file))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> - mutex_lock(&group->group_lock);
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&group->kvm_ref_lock, flags);
>>> group->kvm = kvm;
>>> - mutex_unlock(&group->group_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&group->kvm_ref_lock, flags);
>>
>> We know we are in a sleeping context here so these are just
>> 'spin_lock()', same with the other one
>
> a dumb question. Why spinlock is required here? 😊
>
You mean as opposed to another mutex? I don't think it's required per se (we are replacing a mutex so we could have again used another mutex here), but all current users of this new lock hold it over a very short window (e.g. set a pointer as above, or refcount++ and copy the pointer as in the first device_open)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists