Re: [PATCH] vfio: Limit group opens

[Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>]

On 06/22/2013 11:26 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 11:16 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Cool, thanks!
>>
>> So we will need only this (to be called from KVM), and that will be it, right?
> 
> For what?  This is not the external lock you're looking for.  As I've
> mentioned, the file can only hold the group, but that doesn't give you
> any guarantee that the group is protected by the IOMMU.  Thanks,


I am confused, sorry :) With this patch, a group fd cannot be reopened if
already opened, and this is the only way for user space to take control
over a group. If it is not an external lock, then what is it? And all I
have to do now is to verify that the group fd passed to KVM is correct and
I am happy. Who and how can break anything (group? KVM?) now?



> 
> Alex
> 
>> int vfio_group_iommu_id_from_file(struct file *filep)
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/22/2013 07:12 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> vfio_group_fops_open attempts to limit concurrent sessions by
>>> disallowing opens once group->container is set.  This really doesn't
>>> do what we want and allow for inconsistent behavior, for instance a
>>> group can be opened twice, then a container set giving the user two
>>> file descriptors to the group.  But then it won't allow more to be
>>> opened.  There's not much reason to have the group opened multiple
>>> times since most access is through devices or the container, so
>>> complete what the original code intended and only allow a single
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/vfio/vfio.c |   14 ++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
>>> index 6d78736..d30f44d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
>>> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ struct vfio_group {
>>>  	struct notifier_block		nb;
>>>  	struct list_head		vfio_next;
>>>  	struct list_head		container_next;
>>> +	atomic_t			opened;
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  struct vfio_device {
>>> @@ -206,6 +207,7 @@ static struct vfio_group *vfio_create_group(struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&group->device_list);
>>>  	mutex_init(&group->device_lock);
>>>  	atomic_set(&group->container_users, 0);
>>> +	atomic_set(&group->opened, 0);
>>>  	group->iommu_group = iommu_group;
>>>  
>>>  	group->nb.notifier_call = vfio_iommu_group_notifier;
>>> @@ -1236,12 +1238,22 @@ static long vfio_group_fops_compat_ioctl(struct file *filep,
>>>  static int vfio_group_fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct vfio_group *group;
>>> +	int opened;
>>>  
>>>  	group = vfio_group_get_from_minor(iminor(inode));
>>>  	if (!group)
>>>  		return -ENODEV;
>>>  
>>> +	/* Do we need multiple instances of the group open?  Seems not. */
>>> +	opened = atomic_cmpxchg(&group->opened, 0, 1);
>>> +	if (opened) {
>>> +		vfio_group_put(group);
>>> +		return -EBUSY;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	/* Is something still in use from a previous open? */
>>>  	if (group->container) {
>>> +		atomic_dec(&group->opened);
>>>  		vfio_group_put(group);
>>>  		return -EBUSY;
>>>  	}
>>> @@ -1259,6 +1271,8 @@ static int vfio_group_fops_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
>>>  
>>>  	vfio_group_try_dissolve_container(group);
>>>  
>>> +	atomic_dec(&group->opened);
>>> +
>>>  	vfio_group_put(group);
>>>  
>>>  	return 0;
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Alexey