From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <jgg@nvidia.com>, <jgg@ziepe.ca>, <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
<will@kernel.org>, <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>,
<iommu@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<joro@8bytes.org>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
<aik@amd.com>, <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, <yilun.xu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] iommufd: Destroy vdevice on idevice destroy
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:34:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aGLmq8D88mN5lkmN@Asurada-Nvidia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250627033809.1730752-3-yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 11:38:06AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> +static void iommufd_device_remove_vdev(struct iommufd_device *idev)
> +{
> + struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&idev->igroup->lock);
> + /* vdev has been completely destroyed by userspace */
> + if (!idev->vdev)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> + vdev = iommufd_get_vdevice(idev->ictx, idev->vdev->obj.id);
> + if (IS_ERR(vdev)) {
> + /*
> + * vdev is removed from xarray by userspace, but is not
> + * destroyed/freed. Since iommufd_vdevice_abort() is reentrant,
> + * safe to destroy vdev here.
> + */
> + iommufd_vdevice_abort(&idev->vdev->obj);
> + goto out_unlock;
This is the case #3, i.e. a racing vdev destory, in the commit log?
I think it is worth clarifying that there is a concurrent destroy:
/*
* An ongoing vdev destroy ioctl has removed the vdev from the
* object xarray but has not finished iommufd_vdevice_destroy()
* yet, as it is holding the same mutex. Destroy the vdev here,
* i.e. the iommufd_vdevice_destroy() will be a NOP once it is
* unlocked.
*/
> @@ -147,10 +183,12 @@ int iommufd_vdevice_alloc_ioctl(struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd)
> if (rc)
> goto out_abort;
> iommufd_object_finalize(ucmd->ictx, &vdev->obj);
> - goto out_put_idev;
> + goto out_unlock_igroup;
>
> out_abort:
> iommufd_object_abort_and_destroy(ucmd->ictx, &vdev->obj);
> +out_unlock_igroup:
> + mutex_unlock(&idev->igroup->lock);
Looks like we will have to partially revert the _ucmd allocator,
in this function:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/107b24a3b791091bb09c92ffb0081c56c413b26d.1749882255.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com/
Please try fixing the conflicts on top of Jason's for-next tree.
Thanks
Nicolin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-30 19:34 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
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 [this message]
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=aGLmq8D88mN5lkmN@Asurada-Nvidia \
--to=nicolinc@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=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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.