[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250614001555.GR1174925@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:15:55 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@...ux.microsoft.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Zhang Yu <zhangyu1@...rosoft.com>,
Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vfio: Fix unbalanced vfio_df_close call in
no-iommu mode
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:31:03PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:23:43 -0700
> Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> >
> > For devices with no-iommu enabled in IOMMUFD VFIO compat mode, the group
> > open path skips vfio_df_open(), leaving open_count at 0. This causes a
> > warning in vfio_assert_device_open(device) when vfio_df_close() is called
> > during group close.
> >
> > The correct behavior is to skip only the IOMMUFD bind in the device open
> > path for no-iommu devices. Commit 6086efe73498 omitted vfio_df_open(),
> > which was too broad. This patch restores the previous behavior, ensuring
> > the vfio_df_open is called in the group open path.
> >
> > Fixes: 6086efe73498 ("vfio-iommufd: Move noiommu compat validation out of vfio_iommufd_bind()")
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Tested-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Use a fix from Jason
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/group.c | 10 +++++-----
> > drivers/vfio/iommufd.c | 3 ---
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/group.c b/drivers/vfio/group.c
> > index c321d442f0da..8f5fe8a392de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/group.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/group.c
> > @@ -192,18 +192,18 @@ static int vfio_df_group_open(struct vfio_device_file *df)
> > * implies they expected translation to exist
> > */
> > if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO) ||
> > - vfio_iommufd_device_has_compat_ioas(device, df->iommufd))
> > + vfio_iommufd_device_has_compat_ioas(device, df->iommufd)) {
> > ret = -EPERM;
> > - else
> > - ret = 0;
> > - goto out_put_kvm;
> > + goto out_put_kvm;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > ret = vfio_df_open(df);
> > if (ret)
> > goto out_put_kvm;
> >
> > - if (df->iommufd && device->open_count == 1) {
> > + if (df->iommufd && device->open_count == 1 &&
> > + !vfio_device_is_noiommu(device)) {
>
> Why do we need this?
What I was trying to do is put all the logic about noiommu into only
vfio_df..open/close functions instead of sprikling it into a bunch of
other functions. That seemed to be the right point to make this cut.
> int vfio_iommufd_compat_attach_ioas(struct vfio_device *vdev,
> struct iommufd_ctx *ictx)
> {
> u32 ioas_id;
> int ret;
>
> lockdep_assert_held(&vdev->dev_set->lock);
>
> /* compat noiommu does not need to do ioas attach */
> if (vfio_device_is_noiommu(vdev))
> return 0;
So this should be removed, I missed it
> > @@ -54,9 +54,6 @@ void vfio_df_iommufd_unbind(struct vfio_device_file *df)
> >
> > lockdep_assert_held(&vdev->dev_set->lock);
> >
> > - if (vfio_device_is_noiommu(vdev))
> > - return;
> > -
>
> Why not keep this and add similar to vfio_df_iommufd_bind()? It seems
> cleaner to me. Thanks,
Same as above, we don't check for noiommu in bind, so we should not
check it in unbind to have a symetrical API design.
With this patch we move toward the vfio_df..open/close functions being
symmetrical in their decision making.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists