public inbox for linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>, Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	frankja@linux.ibm.com, akrowiak@linux.ibm.com,
	pasic@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com,
	mimu@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] s390: vfio_ap: link the vfio_ap devices to the vfio_ap bus subsystem
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:05:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6147f1ce-fd8b-1ec2-30ce-7ac68f3d8e27@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190214155441.087d2a68.cohuck@redhat.com>

On 14.02.2019 15:54, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:51:01 +0100
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

Pierre,
this is independent from this series and should have been sent separately.
In the end (when we have the final solution) this will require cc stable.
> 
>> Libudev relies on having a subsystem link for non-root devices. To
>> avoid libudev (and potentially other userspace tools) choking on the
>> matrix device let us introduce a vfio_ap bus and with that the vfio_ap
>> bus subsytem, and make the matrix device reside within it.
> 
> How does libudev choke on this? It feels wrong to introduce a bus that
> basically does nothing...

I have seen libvirt looping when a matrix device was available before the
libvirt start.
Marc Hartmayer debugged this and circumvented this in libvirt:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-February/msg00837.html

Still libudev expects a subsystem link in the matrix folder when doing the 
udev_enumerate_scan_devices call.

Having a bus is one way of adding a subsystem link.

> 
>>
>> We restrict the number of allowed devices to a single one.
>>
>> Doing this we need to suppress the forced link from the matrix device to
>> the vfio_ap driver and we suppress the device_type we do not need
>> anymore.
>>
>> Since the associated matrix driver is not the vfio_ap driver any more,
>> we have to change the search for the devices on the vfio_ap driver in
>> the function vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c     | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     |  4 +--
>>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |  1 +
>>  3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> index 31c6c84..1fd5fe6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> @@ -24,8 +24,9 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>  
>>  static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv;
>>  
>> -static struct device_type vfio_ap_dev_type = {
>> -	.name = VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME,
>> +struct matrix_driver {
>> +	struct device_driver drv;
>> +	int device_count;
> 
> This counter basically ensures that at most one device may bind with
> this driver... you'd still have that device on the bus, though.
> 
>>  };
>>  
>>  struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
>> @@ -62,6 +63,41 @@ static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>>  	kfree(matrix_dev);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int matrix_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>> +{
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct bus_type matrix_bus = {
>> +	.name = "vfio_ap",
>> +	.match = &matrix_bus_match,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int matrix_probe(struct device *dev);
>> +static int matrix_remove(struct device *dev);
>> +static struct matrix_driver matrix_driver = {
>> +	.drv = {
>> +		.name = "vfio_ap",
>> +		.bus = &matrix_bus,
>> +		.probe = matrix_probe,
>> +		.remove = matrix_remove,
>> +	},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int matrix_probe(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	if (matrix_driver.device_count)
>> +		return -EEXIST;
>> +	matrix_driver.device_count++;
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int matrix_remove(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	matrix_driver.device_count--;
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
>>  {
>>  	int ret;
>> @@ -71,6 +107,10 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
>>  	if (IS_ERR(root_device))
>>  		return PTR_ERR(root_device);
>>  
>> +	ret = bus_register(&matrix_bus);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto bus_register_err;
>> +
>>  	matrix_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*matrix_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>>  	if (!matrix_dev) {
>>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -87,30 +127,41 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
>>  	mutex_init(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matrix_dev->mdev_list);
>>  
>> -	matrix_dev->device.type = &vfio_ap_dev_type;
>>  	dev_set_name(&matrix_dev->device, "%s", VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME);
>>  	matrix_dev->device.parent = root_device;
>> +	matrix_dev->device.bus = &matrix_bus;
>>  	matrix_dev->device.release = vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release;
>> -	matrix_dev->device.driver = &vfio_ap_drv.driver;
>> +	matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv = &vfio_ap_drv;
> 
> Can't you get that structure through matrix_dev->device.driver instead
> when you need it in the function below?
> 
>>  
>>  	ret = device_register(&matrix_dev->device);
>>  	if (ret)
>>  		goto matrix_reg_err;
>>  
>> +	ret = driver_register(&matrix_driver.drv);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto matrix_drv_err;
>> +
> 
> As you already have several structures that can be registered exactly
> once (the root device, the bus, the driver, ...), you can already be
> sure that there's only one device on the bus, can't you?
> 
>>  	return 0;
>>  
>> +matrix_drv_err:
>> +	device_unregister(&matrix_dev->device);
>>  matrix_reg_err:
>>  	put_device(&matrix_dev->device);
>>  matrix_alloc_err:
>> +	bus_unregister(&matrix_bus);
>> +bus_register_err:
>>  	root_device_unregister(root_device);
>> -
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_destroy(void)
>>  {
>> +	struct device *root_device = matrix_dev->device.parent;
>> +
>> +	driver_unregister(&matrix_driver.drv);
>>  	device_unregister(&matrix_dev->device);
>> -	root_device_unregister(matrix_dev->device.parent);
>> +	bus_unregister(&matrix_bus);
>> +	root_device_unregister(root_device);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int __init vfio_ap_init(void)
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> index 272ef42..900b9cf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> @@ -198,8 +198,8 @@ static int vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved(unsigned long *apid,
>>  	qres.apqi = apqi;
>>  	qres.reserved = false;
>>  
>> -	ret = driver_for_each_device(matrix_dev->device.driver, NULL, &qres,
>> -				     vfio_ap_has_queue);
>> +	ret = driver_for_each_device(&matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv->driver, NULL,
>> +				     &qres, vfio_ap_has_queue);
>>  	if (ret)
>>  		return ret;
>>  
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> index 5675492..76b7f98 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct ap_matrix_dev {
>>  	struct ap_config_info info;
>>  	struct list_head mdev_list;
>>  	struct mutex lock;
>> +	struct ap_driver  *vfio_ap_drv;
>>  };
>>  
>>  extern struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
> 
> This feels like a lot of boilerplate code, just to create a bus that
> basically doesn't do anything. I'm surprised that libudev can't deal
> with bus-less devices properly...
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-02-14 15:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-14 13:51 [PATCH v3 0/9] [RFC] vfio: ap: ioctl definitions for AP Queue Interrupt Control Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] s390: vfio_ap: link the vfio_ap devices to the vfio_ap bus subsystem Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 14:54   ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-14 15:05     ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2019-02-14 15:40       ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-14 17:12       ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-14 17:35       ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 15:47     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 16:57       ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-14 17:36         ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 18:30           ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-15  9:11             ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-15 21:59               ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-18 12:01                 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-18 16:35                   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-18 16:57                     ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-19 22:27                       ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-20  9:05                         ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-14 15:01   ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-02-14 15:09     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] s390: ap: kvm: setting a hook for PQAP instructions Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 15:54   ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-14 16:45     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-15  9:26       ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-15  9:55         ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 22:02   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-18 18:29     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-18 22:42       ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-19 19:50         ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-19 22:36           ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-21 12:40             ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-19 22:50           ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] s390: ap: new vfio_ap_queue structure Pierre Morel
2019-02-15  9:37   ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-15  9:58     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] s390: ap: tools to find a queue with a specific APQN Pierre Morel
2019-02-15  9:49   ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-15 10:10     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 10:24       ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-15 22:13   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-18 12:21     ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-18 18:32       ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-22 15:04       ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] s390: ap: tools to associate a queue to a matrix Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 22:30   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-18 18:36     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] vfio: ap: register IOMMU VFIO notifier Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 22:55   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-19  9:59     ` Halil Pasic
2019-02-19 19:04       ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-19 21:33       ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-19 18:51     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] s390: ap: implement PAPQ AQIC interception in kernel Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 23:11   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-19 19:16     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-20 11:54   ` Halil Pasic
2019-02-21 12:50     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] s390: ap: Cleanup on removing the AP device Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 23:29   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-19 19:29     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-15 23:36   ` Tony Krowiak
2019-02-19 19:41     ` Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] s390: ap: kvm: add AP Queue Interruption Control facility Pierre Morel
2019-02-14 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 0/9] [RFC] vfio: ap: ioctl definitions for AP Queue Interrupt Control Tony Krowiak
2019-02-15  8:44   ` Pierre Morel

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=6147f1ce-fd8b-1ec2-30ce-7ac68f3d8e27@de.ibm.com \
    --to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=freude@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mimu@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.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