On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:20:38 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> +/*
> + * We need to get memory_lock for each device, but devices can share
> mmap_lock,
> + * therefore we need to zap and hold the vma_lock for each device, and only
> then
> + * get each memory_lock.
> + */
> +static int vfio_hot_reset_device_set(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
> + struct vfio_pci_group_info *groups)
> +{
> + struct vfio_device_set *dev_set = vdev->vdev.dev_set;
> + struct vfio_pci_device *cur_mem =
> + list_first_entry(&dev_set->device_list, struct vfio_pci_device,
> + vdev.dev_set_list);
We shouldn't be looking at the list outside of the lock, if the first
entry got removed we'd break our unwind code.
> + struct vfio_pci_device *cur_vma;
> + struct vfio_pci_device *cur;
> + bool is_mem = true;
> + int ret;
>
> - if (pci_dev_driver(pdev) != &vfio_pci_driver) {
> - vfio_device_put(device);
> - return -EBUSY;
> + mutex_lock(&dev_set->lock);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +
> + /* All devices in the group to be reset need VFIO devices */
> + if (vfio_pci_for_each_slot_or_bus(
> + vdev->pdev, vfio_pci_check_all_devices_bound, dev_set,
> + !pci_probe_reset_slot(vdev->pdev->slot))) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto err_unlock;
> }
>
> - vdev = container_of(device, struct vfio_pci_device, vdev);
> + list_for_each_entry(cur_vma, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list) {
> + /*
> + * Test whether all the affected devices are contained by the
> + * set of groups provided by the user.
> + */
> + if (!vfio_dev_in_groups(cur_vma, groups)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto err_undo;
> + }
>
> - /*
> - * Locking multiple devices is prone to deadlock, runaway and
> - * unwind if we hit contention.
> - */
> - if (!vfio_pci_zap_and_vma_lock(vdev, true)) {
> - vfio_device_put(device);
> - return -EBUSY;
> + /*
> + * Locking multiple devices is prone to deadlock, runaway and
> + * unwind if we hit contention.
> + */
> + if (!vfio_pci_zap_and_vma_lock(cur_vma, true)) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto err_undo;
> + }
> }
>
> - devs->devices[devs->cur_index++] = vdev;
> - return 0;
> + list_for_each_entry(cur_mem, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list) {
> + if (!down_write_trylock(&cur_mem->memory_lock)) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto err_undo;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&cur_mem->vma_lock);
> + }
> +
> + ret = pci_reset_bus(vdev->pdev);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(cur, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list)
> + up_write(&cur->memory_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_set->lock);
> +
> + return ret;
Isn't the above section actually redundant to below, ie. we could just
fall through after the pci_reset_bus()? Thanks,
Alex
> +
> +err_undo:
> + list_for_each_entry(cur, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list) {
> + if (cur == cur_mem)
> + is_mem = false;
> + if (cur == cur_vma)
> + break;
> + if (is_mem)
> + up_write(&cur->memory_lock);
> + else
> + mutex_unlock(&cur->vma_lock);
> + }
> +err_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_set->lock);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /*
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
