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