LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
kwankhede@nvidia.com, Dong Jia <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] vfio/mdev: Device namespace protection
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 19:17:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c666f6b7-bd49-79e4-703d-2724f7549c53@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180518190145.3187.7620.stgit@gimli.home>
From vfio-ccw perspective I join Connie's assessment: vfio-ccw should
be fine with these changes. I'm however not too deeply involved with
the mdev framework, thus I don't feel comfortable r-b-ing. That results
in
Acked-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
for both patches.
While at it I have would like to ask about the semantics and intended
use of the mdev interfaces.
static int vfio_ccw_sch_probe(struct subchannel *sch)
{
/* HALIL: 8< Not so interesting stuff happens here. >8 */
ret = vfio_ccw_mdev_reg(sch);
if (ret)
goto out_disable;
/*
* HALIL:
* This might be racy. Somewhere in vfio_ccw_mdev_reg() the create attribute
* is made available (it calls mdev_register_device()). For instance create will
* attempt to decrement private->avail which is initialized below. I fail to
* understand how is this well synchronized.
*/
INIT_WORK(&private->io_work, vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo);
atomic_set(&private->avail, 1);
private->state = VFIO_CCW_STATE_STANDBY;
return 0;
out_disable:
cio_disable_subchannel(sch);
out_free:
dev_set_drvdata(&sch->dev, NULL);
kfree(private);
return ret;
}
Should not initialization of go before mdev_register_device(), and then rolled
back if necessary if mdev_register_device() fails?
In practice it does not seem very likely that userspace can trigger
mdev_device_create() before vfio_ccw_sch_probe() finishes so it should
not be a practical problem. But I would like to understand how synchronization
is supposed to work.
[Added Dong Jia, maybe he is also able to answer my question.]
Regards,
Halil
On 05/18/2018 09:10 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> v4: Fix the 'create' racing 'remove' gap noted by Kirti by moving
> removal from mdev_list to mdev_device_release(). Fix missing
> mdev_put_parent() cases in mdev_device_create(), also noted
> by Kirti. Added documention update regarding serialization as
> noted by Cornelia. Added additional commit log comment about
> -EAGAIN vs -ENODEV for 'remove' racing 'create'. Added second
> patch to re-order sysfs attributes, with this my targeted
> scripts can no longer hit the gap where -EAGAIN is regurned.
> BTW, the gap where the current code returns -ENODEV in this
> race condition is about 50% easier to hit than it exists in
> this series with patch 1 alone.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> ---
>
> Alex Williamson (2):
> vfio/mdev: Check globally for duplicate devices
> vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation
>
>
> Documentation/vfio-mediated-device.txt | 5 ++
> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 102 +++++++++++---------------------
> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_private.h | 2 -
> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c | 14 ++--
> 4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-22 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-18 19:10 Alex Williamson
2018-05-18 19:10 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] vfio/mdev: Check globally for duplicate devices Alex Williamson
2018-05-18 19:37 ` Kirti Wankhede
2018-05-22 8:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-05-22 15:53 ` Alex Williamson
2018-05-23 4:53 ` Zhenyu Wang
2018-05-18 19:10 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation Alex Williamson
2018-05-18 19:38 ` Kirti Wankhede
2018-05-22 8:14 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-05-18 19:37 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] vfio/mdev: Device namespace protection Kirti Wankhede
2018-05-22 17:17 ` Halil Pasic [this message]
2018-05-22 18:38 ` Alex Williamson
2018-05-23 8:56 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-05-23 12:29 ` Halil Pasic
2018-05-23 13:34 ` Cornelia Huck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c666f6b7-bd49-79e4-703d-2724f7549c53@linux.ibm.com \
--to=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--subject='Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] vfio/mdev: Device namespace protection' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).