Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] driver core: Add dma_cleanup callback in bus_type

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-02-23T17:47:36Z

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 05:05:23PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 16:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:09:01AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:46:27AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:04:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 - tmp->driver is non-NULL because tmp is already bound.
> > > > > > > 1.a - If tmp->driver->driver_managed_dma == 0, the group must currently be
> > > > > > > DMA-API-owned as a whole. Regardless of what driver dev has unbound from,
> > > > > > > its removal does not release someone else's DMA API (co-)ownership.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is an uncommon locking pattern, but it does work. It relies on
> > > > > > the mutex being an effective synchronization barrier for an unlocked
> > > > > > store:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(dev->driver, NULL)
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the driver core should be messing with the dev->driver pointer as
> > > > > when it does so, it already has the proper locks held. Do I need to
> > > > > move that to a "private" location so that nothing outside of the driver
> > > > > core can mess with it?
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice, I've seen a abuse and mislocking of it in drivers
> > >
> > > Though to be clear, what Robin is describing is still keeping the
> > > dev->driver stores in dd.c, just reading it in a lockless way from
> > > other modules.
> >
> > "other modules" should never care if a device has a driver bound to it
> > because instantly after the check happens, it can change so what ever
> > logic it wanted to do with that knowledge is gone.
> >
> > Unless the bus lock is held that the device is on, but that should be
> > only accessable from within the driver core as it controls that type of
> > stuff, not any random other part of the kernel.
> >
> > And in looking at this, ick, there are loads of places in the kernel
> > that are thinking that this pointer being set to something actually
> > means something. Sometimes it does, but lots of places, it doesn't as
> > it can change.
>
> That's fine. In this case we're only talking about the low-level IOMMU code
> which has to be in cahoots with the driver core to some degree (via these
> new callbacks) anyway, but if you're uncomfortable about relying on
> dev->driver even there, I can live with that. There are several potential
> places to capture the relevant information in IOMMU API private data, from
> the point in really_probe() where it *is* stable, and then never look at
> dev->driver ever again - even from .dma_cleanup() or future equivalent,
> which is the aspect from whence this whole proof-of-concept tangent span
> out.

For a specific driver core callback, like dma_cleanup(), all is fine,
but you shouldn't be caring about a driver pointer in your bus callback
for stuff like this as you "know" what happened by virtue of the
callback being called.

thanks,

greg k-h