[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZxaEXy/nKTNC5k1M@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:42:07 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <kevin.tian@...el.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
<dwmw2@...radead.org>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
<eric.auger@...hat.com>, <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, <mdf@...nel.org>,
<mshavit@...gle.com>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
<smostafa@...gle.com>, <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, <aik@....com>,
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] iommufd/viommu: Add IOMMU_VDEVICE_ALLOC ioctl
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:22:48AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 06:42:30PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > But be mindful of this abort, it doesn't want to be inside the lock if
> > > it also gets the lock.. fail_nth should be updated to cover these new
> > > ioctls to look for tricky things like that
> >
> > I added an abort() beside destroy():
> >
> > +void iommufd_vdevice_abort(struct iommufd_object *obj)
> > +{
> > + struct iommufd_vdevice *old, *vdev =
> > + container_of(obj, struct iommufd_vdevice, obj);
> > + struct iommufd_viommu *viommu = vdev->viommu;
> > + struct iommufd_device *idev = vdev->idev;
> > +
> > + lockdep_assert_not_held(&idev->igroup->lock);
>
> ???
Oops. That's a typo from auto-completion.
> > +void iommufd_vdevice_destroy(struct iommufd_object *obj)
> > +{
> > + struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev =
> > + container_of(obj, struct iommufd_vdevice, obj);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&vdev->idev->igroup->lock);
> > + iommufd_vdevice_abort(obj);
>
> When we get it here??
LOCKDEP wasn't enabled when I tested it.. Just fixed and retested.
Thanks
Nicolin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists