[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250710202354.1658511-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:23:54 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: <jgg@...dia.com>, <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] iommufd: Do not allow _iommufd_object_alloc_ucmd if abort op is set
An abort op was introduced to allow its caller to invoke it within a lock
in the caller's function. On the other hand, _iommufd_object_alloc_ucmd()
would invoke the abort op in iommufd_object_abort_and_destroy() that must
be outside the caller's lock. So, these two cannot work together.
Add a validation in the _iommufd_object_alloc_ucmd(). Pick -EOPNOTSUPP to
reject the function call, indicating that the object allocator is buggy.
Suggested-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
---
drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c
index 0fb81a905cb1..69c2195e77ca 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c
@@ -71,6 +71,15 @@ struct iommufd_object *_iommufd_object_alloc_ucmd(struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd,
if (WARN_ON(ucmd->new_obj))
return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
+ /*
+ * An abort op means that its caller needs to invoke it within a lock in
+ * the caller. So it doesn't work with _iommufd_object_alloc_ucmd() that
+ * will invoke the abort op in iommufd_object_abort_and_destroy(), which
+ * must be outside the caller's lock.
+ */
+ if (WARN_ON(iommufd_object_ops[type].abort))
+ return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
+
new_obj = _iommufd_object_alloc(ucmd->ictx, size, type);
if (IS_ERR(new_obj))
return new_obj;
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists