Message ID | ad75a1f7f0b4d5b6d35238b4ae7b41db1410110c.1690488745.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | 9227da7816dd1a42e20d41e2244cb63c205477ca |
Headers | show |
Series | None | expand |
> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 4:25 AM > > +static int iommufd_access_change_ioas(struct iommufd_access *access, > + struct iommufd_ioas *new_ioas) > +{ > + u32 iopt_access_list_id = access->iopt_access_list_id; > + struct iommufd_ioas *cur_ioas = access->ioas; > + int rc; > + > + lockdep_assert_held(&access->ioas_lock); > + > + /* We are racing with a concurrent detach, bail */ > + if (cur_ioas != access->ioas_unpin) > + return -EBUSY; > + > + if (IS_ERR(new_ioas)) > + return PTR_ERR(new_ioas); iommufd_access_change_ioas_id() already checks errors. > + > void iommufd_access_destroy_object(struct iommufd_object *obj) > { > struct iommufd_access *access = > container_of(obj, struct iommufd_access, obj); > > - if (access->ioas) { > - iopt_remove_access(&access->ioas->iopt, access, > - access->iopt_access_list_id); > - refcount_dec(&access->ioas->obj.users); > - access->ioas = NULL; > - } > + mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); > + if (access->ioas) > + WARN_ON(iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL)); > + mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); > iommufd_ctx_put(access->ictx); > } this changes the behavior of destroy. Previously it always removes the access w/o detecting race while now it will give up and throw out a warning. While I'm fine with this change from bisec p.o.v. it might be good to split this into a separate patch. > void iommufd_access_detach(struct iommufd_access *access) > { > - struct iommufd_ioas *cur_ioas = access->ioas; > + int rc; > > mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); > - if (WARN_ON(!access->ioas)) > - goto out; > - /* > - * Set ioas to NULL to block any further iommufd_access_pin_pages(). > - * iommufd_access_unpin_pages() can continue using access- > >ioas_unpin. > - */ > - access->ioas = NULL; > - > - if (access->ops->unmap) { > + if (WARN_ON(!access->ioas)) { > mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); > - access->ops->unmap(access->data, 0, ULONG_MAX); > - mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); > + return; > } > - iopt_remove_access(&cur_ioas->iopt, access, > - access->iopt_access_list_id); > - refcount_dec(&cur_ioas->obj.users); > -out: > - access->ioas_unpin = NULL; > + rc = iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL); > + WARN_ON(rc); 'rc' can be removed. Just "WARN_ON(iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL));" otherwise looks good to me, Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 04:23:03AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 4:25 AM > > > > +static int iommufd_access_change_ioas(struct iommufd_access *access, > > + struct iommufd_ioas *new_ioas) > > +{ > > + u32 iopt_access_list_id = access->iopt_access_list_id; > > + struct iommufd_ioas *cur_ioas = access->ioas; > > + int rc; > > + > > + lockdep_assert_held(&access->ioas_lock); > > + > > + /* We are racing with a concurrent detach, bail */ > > + if (cur_ioas != access->ioas_unpin) > > + return -EBUSY; > > + > > + if (IS_ERR(new_ioas)) > > + return PTR_ERR(new_ioas); > > iommufd_access_change_ioas_id() already checks errors. I've thought about that: given that iommufd_access_change_ioas is a standalone API, though it's not used anywhere else at the moment, it might be safer to have this check again. Otherwise, we would need a line of comments saying that "caller must make sure that the input new_ioas is not holding an error code" or so? > > + > > void iommufd_access_destroy_object(struct iommufd_object *obj) > > { > > struct iommufd_access *access = > > container_of(obj, struct iommufd_access, obj); > > > > - if (access->ioas) { > > - iopt_remove_access(&access->ioas->iopt, access, > > - access->iopt_access_list_id); > > - refcount_dec(&access->ioas->obj.users); > > - access->ioas = NULL; > > - } > > + mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); > > + if (access->ioas) > > + WARN_ON(iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL)); > > + mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); > > iommufd_ctx_put(access->ictx); > > } > > this changes the behavior of destroy. Previously it always removes > the access w/o detecting race while now it will give up and throw > out a warning. You mean the -EBUSY case? That's a good catch.. > While I'm fine with this change from bisec p.o.v. > it might be good to split this into a separate patch. Yea, I can do that. > > void iommufd_access_detach(struct iommufd_access *access) > > { > > - struct iommufd_ioas *cur_ioas = access->ioas; > > + int rc; > > > > mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); > > - if (WARN_ON(!access->ioas)) > > - goto out; > > - /* > > - * Set ioas to NULL to block any further iommufd_access_pin_pages(). > > - * iommufd_access_unpin_pages() can continue using access- > > >ioas_unpin. > > - */ > > - access->ioas = NULL; > > - > > - if (access->ops->unmap) { > > + if (WARN_ON(!access->ioas)) { > > mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); > > - access->ops->unmap(access->data, 0, ULONG_MAX); > > - mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); > > + return; > > } > > - iopt_remove_access(&cur_ioas->iopt, access, > > - access->iopt_access_list_id); > > - refcount_dec(&cur_ioas->obj.users); > > -out: > > - access->ioas_unpin = NULL; > > + rc = iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL); > > + WARN_ON(rc); > > 'rc' can be removed. > > Just "WARN_ON(iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL));" Will do that in v11. > otherwise looks good to me, > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com> Thanks! Nic
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c index 7a3e8660b902..e79cbedd8626 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c @@ -684,17 +684,82 @@ void iommufd_device_detach(struct iommufd_device *idev) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iommufd_device_detach, IOMMUFD); +/* + * On success, it will refcount_inc() at a valid new_ioas and refcount_dec() at + * a valid cur_ioas (access->ioas). A caller passing in a valid new_ioas should + * call iommufd_put_object() if it does an iommufd_get_object() for a new_ioas. + */ +static int iommufd_access_change_ioas(struct iommufd_access *access, + struct iommufd_ioas *new_ioas) +{ + u32 iopt_access_list_id = access->iopt_access_list_id; + struct iommufd_ioas *cur_ioas = access->ioas; + int rc; + + lockdep_assert_held(&access->ioas_lock); + + /* We are racing with a concurrent detach, bail */ + if (cur_ioas != access->ioas_unpin) + return -EBUSY; + + if (IS_ERR(new_ioas)) + return PTR_ERR(new_ioas); + + if (cur_ioas == new_ioas) + return 0; + + /* + * Set ioas to NULL to block any further iommufd_access_pin_pages(). + * iommufd_access_unpin_pages() can continue using access->ioas_unpin. + */ + access->ioas = NULL; + + if (new_ioas) { + rc = iopt_add_access(&new_ioas->iopt, access); + if (rc) { + access->ioas = cur_ioas; + return rc; + } + refcount_inc(&new_ioas->obj.users); + } + + if (cur_ioas) { + if (access->ops->unmap) { + mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); + access->ops->unmap(access->data, 0, ULONG_MAX); + mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); + } + iopt_remove_access(&cur_ioas->iopt, access, iopt_access_list_id); + refcount_dec(&cur_ioas->obj.users); + } + + access->ioas = new_ioas; + access->ioas_unpin = new_ioas; + + return 0; +} + +static int iommufd_access_change_ioas_id(struct iommufd_access *access, u32 id) +{ + struct iommufd_ioas *ioas = iommufd_get_ioas(access->ictx, id); + int rc; + + if (IS_ERR(ioas)) + return PTR_ERR(ioas); + rc = iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, ioas); + iommufd_put_object(&ioas->obj); + return rc; +} + void iommufd_access_destroy_object(struct iommufd_object *obj) { struct iommufd_access *access = container_of(obj, struct iommufd_access, obj); - if (access->ioas) { - iopt_remove_access(&access->ioas->iopt, access, - access->iopt_access_list_id); - refcount_dec(&access->ioas->obj.users); - access->ioas = NULL; - } + mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); + if (access->ioas) + WARN_ON(iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL)); + mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); iommufd_ctx_put(access->ictx); } @@ -761,60 +826,32 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iommufd_access_destroy, IOMMUFD); void iommufd_access_detach(struct iommufd_access *access) { - struct iommufd_ioas *cur_ioas = access->ioas; + int rc; mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); - if (WARN_ON(!access->ioas)) - goto out; - /* - * Set ioas to NULL to block any further iommufd_access_pin_pages(). - * iommufd_access_unpin_pages() can continue using access->ioas_unpin. - */ - access->ioas = NULL; - - if (access->ops->unmap) { + if (WARN_ON(!access->ioas)) { mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); - access->ops->unmap(access->data, 0, ULONG_MAX); - mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); + return; } - iopt_remove_access(&cur_ioas->iopt, access, - access->iopt_access_list_id); - refcount_dec(&cur_ioas->obj.users); -out: - access->ioas_unpin = NULL; + rc = iommufd_access_change_ioas(access, NULL); + WARN_ON(rc); mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iommufd_access_detach, IOMMUFD); int iommufd_access_attach(struct iommufd_access *access, u32 ioas_id) { - struct iommufd_ioas *new_ioas; - int rc = 0; + int rc; mutex_lock(&access->ioas_lock); - if (WARN_ON(access->ioas || access->ioas_unpin)) { + if (WARN_ON(access->ioas)) { mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); return -EINVAL; } - new_ioas = iommufd_get_ioas(access->ictx, ioas_id); - if (IS_ERR(new_ioas)) { - mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); - return PTR_ERR(new_ioas); - } - - rc = iopt_add_access(&new_ioas->iopt, access); - if (rc) { - mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); - iommufd_put_object(&new_ioas->obj); - return rc; - } - iommufd_ref_to_users(&new_ioas->obj); - - access->ioas = new_ioas; - access->ioas_unpin = new_ioas; + rc = iommufd_access_change_ioas_id(access, ioas_id); mutex_unlock(&access->ioas_lock); - return 0; + return rc; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iommufd_access_attach, IOMMUFD);
The complication of the mutex and refcount will be amplified after we introduce the replace support for access. So, add a preparatory change of a constitutive helper iommufd_access_change_ioas() and its wrapper iommufd_access_change_ioas_id(). They can simply take care of existing iommufd_access_attach() and iommufd_access_detach(), with a less risk of race condition. Also, update the unprotect routine in iommufd_access_destroy_object() to calling the new iommufd_access_change_ioas() helper. Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)