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

Robin Murphy
2022-02-23T17:05:43Z

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.

Cheers,
Robin.