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
next prev parent 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