On 28/02/18 01:26, Sinan Kaya wrote:
[...]
>> +static int vfio_iommu_sva_init(struct device *dev, void *data)
>> +{
>
> data is not getting used.
That's the pointer passed to "iommu_group_for_each_dev", NULL at the
moment. Next version of this patch will keep some state in data to
ensure one device per group.
>> +
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = iommu_sva_device_init(dev, IOMMU_SVA_FEAT_PASID |
>> + IOMMU_SVA_FEAT_IOPF, 0);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return iommu_register_mm_exit_handler(dev, vfio_iommu_mm_exit);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vfio_iommu_sva_shutdown(struct device *dev, void *data)
>> +{
>> + iommu_sva_device_shutdown(dev);
>> + iommu_unregister_mm_exit_handler(dev);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vfio_iommu_bind_group(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
>> + struct vfio_group *group,
>> + struct vfio_mm *vfio_mm)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + int pasid;
>> +
>> + if (!group->sva_enabled) {
>> + ret = iommu_group_for_each_dev(group->iommu_group, NULL,
>> + vfio_iommu_sva_init);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + group->sva_enabled = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = iommu_sva_bind_group(group->iommu_group, vfio_mm->mm, &pasid,
>> + IOMMU_SVA_FEAT_PASID | IOMMU_SVA_FEAT_IOPF,
>> + vfio_mm);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>
> don't you need to clean up the work done by vfio_iommu_sva_init() here.
Yes I suppose we can, if we enabled during this bind
[...]
>> +static long vfio_iommu_type1_bind_process(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
>> + void __user *arg,
>> + struct vfio_iommu_type1_bind *bind)
>> +{
>> + struct vfio_iommu_type1_bind_process params;
>> + struct vfio_domain *domain;
>> + struct vfio_group *group;
>> + struct vfio_mm *vfio_mm;
>> + struct mm_struct *mm;
>> + unsigned long minsz;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + minsz = sizeof(*bind) + sizeof(params);
>> + if (bind->argsz < minsz)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + arg += sizeof(*bind);
>> + if (copy_from_user(¶ms, arg, sizeof(params)))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + if (params.flags & ~VFIO_IOMMU_BIND_PID)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (params.flags & VFIO_IOMMU_BIND_PID) {
>> + mm = vfio_iommu_get_mm_by_vpid(params.pid);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mm))
>> + return PTR_ERR(mm);
>> + } else {
>> + mm = get_task_mm(current);
>> + if (!mm)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>
> I think you can merge mm failure in both states.
Yes, I think vfio_iommu_get_mm_by_vpid could return NULL instead of an
error pointer, and we can throw -ESRCH in all cases (the existing
get_task_mm() failure in this driver does return -ESRCH, so it would be
consistent.)
[...]
>> + /*
>> + * We can't simply unbind a foreign process by PASID, because the
>> + * process might have died and the PASID might have been reallocated to
>> + * another process. Instead we need to fetch that process mm by PID
>> + * again to make sure we remove the right vfio_mm. In addition, holding
>> + * the mm guarantees that mm_users isn't dropped while we unbind and the
>> + * exit_mm handler doesn't fire. While not strictly necessary, not
>> + * having to care about that race simplifies everyone's life.
>> + */
>> + if (params.flags & VFIO_IOMMU_BIND_PID) {
>> + mm = vfio_iommu_get_mm_by_vpid(params.pid);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mm))
>> + return PTR_ERR(mm);
>> + } else {
>> + mm = get_task_mm(current);
>> + if (!mm)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>
> I think you can merge mm failure in both states.
ok
>> + ret = -ESRCH;
>> + mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(vfio_mm, &iommu->mm_list, next) {
>> + if (vfio_mm->mm != mm)
>> + continue;
>> +
>
> these loops look wierd
> 1. for loops + break
> 2. for loops + goto
>
> how about closing the for loop here. and then return here if not vfio_mm
> not found.
ok
>> + vfio_iommu_unbind(iommu, vfio_mm);
>> + list_del(&vfio_mm->next);
>> + kfree(vfio_mm);
>> + ret = 0;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
>> + mmput(mm);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
