All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"aneesh.kumar@kernel.org" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>,
	"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"nicolinc@nvidia.com" <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
	"aik@amd.com" <aik@amd.com>,
	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	"Xu, Yilun" <yilun.xu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] iommufd: Destroy vdevice on idevice destroy
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:13:15 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250701121315.GD167785@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aGOoCa3BkV7KrwVz@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:19:05PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:50:51AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 06:18:50PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > 
> > > I need to reconsider this, seems we need a dedicated vdev lock to
> > > synchronize concurrent vdev abort/destroy.
> > 
> > It is not possible to be concurrent
> > 
> > destroy is only called once after it is no longer possible to call
> > abort.
> 
> I'm almost about to drop the "abort twice" idea. [1]
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20250625123832.GF167785@nvidia.com/
> 
> See from the flow below,
> 
>   T1. iommufd_device_unbind(idev)
> 	iommufd_device_destroy(obj)
> 		mutex_lock(&idev->igroup->lock)
>  		iommufd_vdevice_abort(idev->vdev.obj)
> 		mutex_unlock(&idev->igroup->lock)
> 	kfree(obj)
> 
>   T2. iommufd_destroy(vdev_id)
> 	iommufd_vdevice_destroy(obj)
> 		mutex_lock(&vdev->idev->igroup->lock)
> 		iommufd_vdevice_abort(obj);
> 		mutex_unlock(&vdev->idev->igroup->lock)
> 	kfree(obj)
> 
> iommufd_vdevice_destroy() will access idev->igroup->lock, but it is
> possible the idev is already freed at that time:
> 
>                                             iommufd_destroy(vdev_id)
>                                             iommufd_vdevice_destroy(obj)
>   iommufd_device_unbind(idev)
>   iommufd_device_destroy(obj)
>   mutex_lock(&idev->igroup->lock)
>                                             mutex_lock(&vdev->idev->igroup->lock) (wait)
>   iommufd_vdevice_abort(idev->vdev.obj)
>   mutex_unlock(&idev->igroup->lock)
>   kfree(obj)
>                                             mutex_lock(&vdev->idev->igroup->lock) (PANIC)
>                                             iommufd_vdevice_abort(obj)
>                                             ...

Yes, you can't touch idev inside the destroy function at all, under
any version. idev is only valid if you have a refcount on vdev.

But why are you touching this lock? Arrange things so abort doesn't
touch the idev??

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-01 12:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-27  3:38 [PATCH v3 0/5] iommufd: Destroy vdevice on device unbind Xu Yilun
2025-06-27  3:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] iommufd: Add iommufd_object_tombstone_user() helper Xu Yilun
2025-06-30  3:08   ` Baolu Lu
2025-06-30  7:24     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-30  5:52   ` Tian, Kevin
2025-06-30  6:41     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-30 19:50   ` Nicolin Chen
2025-07-08  8:45     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-27  3:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] iommufd: Destroy vdevice on idevice destroy Xu Yilun
2025-06-30  5:08   ` Baolu Lu
2025-07-08  8:34     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-30  6:27   ` Tian, Kevin
2025-06-30 10:18     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-30 14:50       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-01  9:19         ` Xu Yilun
2025-07-01 12:13           ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2025-07-02  2:23             ` Xu Yilun
2025-07-02  9:13               ` Tian, Kevin
2025-07-02 12:40                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-03  4:32                   ` Tian, Kevin
2025-07-03 11:21                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-07 10:58                   ` Xu Yilun
2025-07-07 12:25                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-07 19:41                       ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-30 19:34   ` Nicolin Chen
2025-07-08  8:12     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-27  3:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] iommufd/vdevice: Remove struct device reference from struct vdevice Xu Yilun
2025-06-30  5:11   ` Baolu Lu
2025-07-04 15:06   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-27  3:38 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] iommufd/selftest: Explicitly skip tests for inapplicable variant Xu Yilun
2025-07-04 15:07   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-27  3:38 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] iommufd/selftest: Add coverage for vdevice tombstone Xu Yilun

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=20250701121315.GD167785@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=aik@amd.com \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yilun.xu@intel.com \
    --cc=yilun.xu@linux.intel.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.