public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] iommu: Same critical region for device release and removal
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 21:08:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZAqDJz4ckNsRz2Cx@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230306025804.13912-4-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 10:58:01AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> In a non-driver context, it is crucial to ensure the consistency of a
> device's iommu ops. Otherwise, it may result in a situation where a
> device is released but it's iommu ops are still used.
> 
> Put the ops->release_device and __iommu_group_remove_device() in a some
> group->mutext critical region, so that, as long as group->mutex is held
> and the device is in its group's device list, its iommu ops are always
> consistent. Add check of group ownership if the released device is the
> last one.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index bd9b293e07a8..0bcd9625090d 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -507,18 +507,44 @@ static void __iommu_group_release_device(struct iommu_group *group,
>  
>  void iommu_release_device(struct device *dev)
>  {
> +	struct iommu_group *group = dev->iommu_group;
> +	struct group_device *device;
>  	const struct iommu_ops *ops;
>  
> -	if (!dev->iommu)
> +	if (!dev->iommu || !group)
>  		return;
>  
>  	iommu_device_unlink(dev->iommu->iommu_dev, dev);
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
> +	device = __iommu_group_remove_device(group, dev);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If the group has become empty then ownership must have been released,
> +	 * and the current domain must be set back to NULL or the default
> +	 * domain.
> +	 */
> +	if (list_empty(&group->devices))
> +		WARN_ON(group->owner_cnt ||
> +			group->domain != group->default_domain);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * release_device() must stop using any attached domain on the device.
> +	 * If there are still other devices in the group they are not effected
> +	 * by this callback.
> +	 *
> +	 * The IOMMU driver must set the device to either an identity or
> +	 * blocking translation and stop using any domain pointer, as it is
> +	 * going to be freed.
> +	 */
>  	ops = dev_iommu_ops(dev);
>  	if (ops->release_device)
>  		ops->release_device(dev);
> +	mutex_unlock(&group->mutex);

IMHO it is best to be locked like this

But for this series, if you run into problems with ARM and
release_device I think we could still safely unlock group->mutex
before calling this?

It would still be OK because the iommu_group_first_dev() will either
return NULL so iommu_group_store_type() wills top, or it will block
the ultimate call to release here which invalidate's ops.

Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-10  1:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-06  2:57 [PATCH v3 0/6] iommu: Extend changing default domain to normal group Lu Baolu
2023-03-06  2:57 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] ARM/dma-mapping: Add arm_iommu_release_device() Lu Baolu
2023-03-10  1:00   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-03-10 22:04   ` Robin Murphy
2023-03-12  3:53     ` Baolu Lu
2023-03-06  2:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] iommu: Split iommu_group_remove_device() into helpers Lu Baolu
2023-03-10  1:01   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-03-06  2:58 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] iommu: Same critical region for device release and removal Lu Baolu
2023-03-10  1:08   ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2023-03-06  2:58 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] iommu: Move lock from iommu_change_dev_def_domain() to its caller Lu Baolu
2023-03-10  1:16   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-03-06  2:58 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] iommu: Replace device_lock() with group->mutex Lu Baolu
2023-03-10  1:30   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-03-06  2:58 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] iommu: Cleanup iommu_change_dev_def_domain() Lu Baolu
2023-03-10  1:30   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-03-10  1:32 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] iommu: Extend changing default domain to normal group Jason Gunthorpe

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=ZAqDJz4ckNsRz2Cx@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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