From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
Zhang Yu <zhangyu1@microsoft.com>,
Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfio: Fix unbalanced vfio_df_close call in no-iommu mode
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 21:05:11 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250527000511.GK61950@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250516164522.51905-1-jacob.pan@linux.microsoft.com>
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 09:45:21AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> For no-iommu enabled devices working under IOMMUFD VFIO compat mode, the
> group open path does not call vfio_df_open() and the open_count is 0. So
> calling vfio_df_close() in the group close path will trigger warning in
> vfio_assert_device_open(device);
>
> E.g. The following warning can be seen by running VFIO test.
> https://github.com/awilliam/tests/blob/master/vfio-noiommu-pci-device-open.c
> CONFIG_VFIO_CONTAINER = n
> [ 29.094781] vfio-pci 0000:02:01.0: vfio-noiommu device opened by user (vfio-noiommu-pc:164)
> Failed to get device info
> [ 29.096540] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 29.096616] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 164 at drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c:487 vfio_df_close+0xac/0xb4
>
> This patch adds checks for no-iommu mode and open_count to skip calling vfio_df_close.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@linux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/group.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Sorry, this should have a fixes line:
I think it is probably
Fixes: 6086efe73498 ("vfio-iommufd: Move noiommu compat validation out of vfio_iommufd_bind()")
By the look of it, since that is what started skipping the vfio_df_open()
But after looking at that patch I'm now doubting that this is the
right fix.
Previously we'd still do vfio_df_device_first_open(), just the
vfio_df_iommufd_bind() was skipped.
Now we skip all of vfio_df_device_first_open() which also means we skip:
if (!try_module_get(device->dev->driver->owner))
return -ENODEV;
and
if (device->ops->open_device) {
ret = device->ops->open_device(device);
Which seems wrong to me?? We only want to skip the bind, we should
still do open_device! At least that is how it was before 6086e
So.. This may not be the right fix.
Maybe more like:
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/group.c b/drivers/vfio/group.c
index c321d442f0da09..1b6a0e30544401 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)) {
ret = vfio_iommufd_compat_attach_ioas(device, df->iommufd);
if (ret)
goto out_close_device;
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/iommufd.c b/drivers/vfio/iommufd.c
index c8c3a2d53f86e1..26c9c3068c77da 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/iommufd.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/iommufd.c
@@ -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;
-
if (vdev->ops->unbind_iommufd)
vdev->ops->unbind_iommufd(vdev);
}
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
index 1fd261efc582d0..ff19ea05442e7d 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
@@ -506,17 +506,19 @@ static int vfio_df_device_first_open(struct vfio_device_file *df)
{
struct vfio_device *device = df->device;
struct iommufd_ctx *iommufd = df->iommufd;
- int ret;
+ int ret = 0;
lockdep_assert_held(&device->dev_set->lock);
if (!try_module_get(device->dev->driver->owner))
return -ENODEV;
- if (iommufd)
- ret = vfio_df_iommufd_bind(df);
- else
+ if (iommufd) {
+ if (!vfio_device_is_noiommu(device))
+ ret = vfio_df_iommufd_bind(df);
+ } else {
ret = vfio_device_group_use_iommu(device);
+ }
if (ret)
goto err_module_put;
@@ -528,10 +530,12 @@ static int vfio_df_device_first_open(struct vfio_device_file *df)
return 0;
err_unuse_iommu:
- if (iommufd)
- vfio_df_iommufd_unbind(df);
- else
+ if (iommufd) {
+ if (!vfio_device_is_noiommu(device))
+ vfio_df_iommufd_unbind(df);
+ } else {
vfio_device_group_unuse_iommu(device);
+ }
err_module_put:
module_put(device->dev->driver->owner);
return ret;
@@ -546,10 +550,12 @@ static void vfio_df_device_last_close(struct vfio_device_file *df)
if (device->ops->close_device)
device->ops->close_device(device);
- if (iommufd)
- vfio_df_iommufd_unbind(df);
- else
+ if (iommufd) {
+ if (!vfio_device_is_noiommu(device))
+ vfio_df_iommufd_unbind(df);
+ } else {
vfio_device_group_unuse_iommu(device);
+ }
module_put(device->dev->driver->owner);
}
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-27 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-16 16:45 [PATCH 1/2] vfio: Fix unbalanced vfio_df_close call in no-iommu mode Jacob Pan
2025-05-16 16:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] vfio: Prevent open_count decrement to negative Jacob Pan
2025-05-26 23:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-05-28 7:24 ` Yi Liu
2025-05-26 23:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] vfio: Fix unbalanced vfio_df_close call in no-iommu mode Jason Gunthorpe
2025-05-27 0:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2025-05-28 7:16 ` Yi Liu
2025-06-03 16:25 ` Jacob Pan
2025-06-03 17:54 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-05-30 16:51 ` Jacob Pan
2025-05-30 16:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-06-02 23:43 Jacob Pan
2025-06-02 23:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-03 15:25 ` Jacob Pan
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=20250527000511.GK61950@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=eahariha@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jacob.pan@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
--cc=zhangyu1@microsoft.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.