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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox