Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] iommufd: Add iommufd_access_replace() API

[Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 07:59:17PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
 
> > > > +	if (new_ioas) {
> > > > +		rc = iopt_add_access(&new_ioas->iopt, access);
> > > > +		if (rc) {
> > > > +			iommufd_put_object(&new_ioas->obj);
> > > > +			access->ioas = cur_ioas;
> > > > +			return rc;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		iommufd_ref_to_users(&new_ioas->obj);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	access->ioas = new_ioas;
> > > > +	access->ioas_unpin = new_ioas;
> > > >  	iopt_remove_access(&cur_ioas->iopt, access);
> > > 
> > > There was a bug in my earlier version, having the same flow by
> > > calling iopt_add_access() prior to iopt_remove_access(). But,
> > > doing that would override the access->iopt_access_list_id and
> > > it would then get unset by the following iopt_remove_access().
> > 
> > Ah, I was wondering about that order but didn't check it.
> > 
> > Maybe we just need to pass the ID into iopt_remove_access and keep the
> > right version on the stack.
> > 
> > > So, I came up with this version calling an iopt_remove_access()
> > > prior to iopt_add_access(), which requires an add-back the old
> > > ioas upon an failure at iopt_add_access(new_ioas).
> > 
> > That is also sort of reasonable if the refcounting is organized like
> > this does.
> 
> I just realized that either my v8 or your version calls unmap()
> first at the entire cur_ioas. So, there seems to be no point in
> doing that fallback re-add routine since the cur_ioas isn't the
> same, which I don't feel quite right...
> 
> Perhaps we should pass the ID into iopt_add/remove_access like
> you said above. And then we attach the new_ioas, piror to the
> detach the cur_ioas?

I sent v9 having the iopt_remove_access trick, so we can do an
iopt_remove_access only upon success. Let's continue there.

Thanks
Nic