linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Destroy vdevice on idevice destroy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250625123832.GF167785@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:38:32 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, will@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...nel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	joro@...tes.org, robin.murphy@....com, shuah@...nel.org,
	nicolinc@...dia.com, aik@....com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, yilun.xu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Destroy vdevice on idevice destroy

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 06:06:00PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > 	/*
> > 	 * We don't know what thread is actually going to destroy the vdev, but
> > 	 * once the vdev is destroyed the pointer is NULL'd. At this
> > 	 * point idev->users is 0 so no other thread can set a new vdev.
> > 	 */
> > 	if (!wait_event_timeout(idev->ictx->destroy_wait,
> > 				!READ_ONCE(idev->vdev),
> > 				msecs_to_jiffies(60000)))
> > 		pr_crit("Time out waiting for iommufd vdevice removed\n");
> > }
> > 
> > Though there is a cleaner option here, you could do:
> > 
> > 	mutex_lock(&idev->igroup->lock);
> > 	if (idev->vdev)
> > 		iommufd_vdevice_abort(&idev->vdev->obj);
> > 	mutex_unlock(&idev->igroup->lock);
> > 
> > And make it safe to call abort twice, eg by setting dev to NULL and
> > checking for that. First thread to get to the igroup lock, either via
> > iommufd_vdevice_destroy() or via the above will do the actual abort
> > synchronously without any wait_event_timeout. That seems better??
> 
> I'm good to both options, but slightly tend not to make vdevice so
> special from other objects, so still prefer the wait_event option.

The wait_event is a ugly hack though, even in its existing code. The
above version is better because it doesn't have any failure mode and
doesn't introduce any unlocked use of the idev->vdev which is easier
to reason about, no READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE/etc

It sounds like you should largely leave the existing other parts the
same as this v2, though can you try reorganize it to look a little
more like the version I shared?

Jason