[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527649C5C0120F73DC8835528CD69@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 04:07:25 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.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>,
"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 v2] vfio: fix deadlock between group lock and kvm lock
> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:47 AM
> > > ret = vfio_device_open(device, device->group->iommufd,
> > > device->group->kvm);
> >
> > We're using device->group->kvm outside of kvm_ref_lock here, it should
> > be using device->kvm.
>
> Existing code set device->kvm in the vfio_device_first_open() which is
> called by vfio_device_open(). After above change, seems not necessary
> to pass kvm pointer into the call chain. Isn't it?
>
Looks so.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists