On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:06:18PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 02:33:28PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 21:24:51 +0000
> > David Matlack <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > > index 0c771064c0b8..19e88322af2c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > > @@ -258,6 +258,10 @@ static int __init vfio_pci_init(void)
> > > int ret;
> > > bool is_disable_vga = true;
> > >
> > > + ret = vfio_pci_liveupdate_init();
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_VGA
> > > is_disable_vga = disable_vga;
> > > #endif
> > > @@ -266,8 +270,10 @@ static int __init vfio_pci_init(void)
> > >
> > > /* Register and scan for devices */
> > > ret = pci_register_driver(&vfio_pci_driver);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + vfio_pci_liveupdate_cleanup();
> > > return ret;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > vfio_pci_fill_ids();
> > >
> > > @@ -281,6 +287,7 @@ module_init(vfio_pci_init);
> > > static void __exit vfio_pci_cleanup(void)
> > > {
> > > pci_unregister_driver(&vfio_pci_driver);
> > > + vfio_pci_liveupdate_cleanup();
> > > }
> > > module_exit(vfio_pci_cleanup);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_liveupdate.c
> > > b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_liveupdate.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..b84e63c0357b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_liveupdate.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
> > ...
> > > +static const struct liveupdate_file_ops vfio_pci_liveupdate_file_ops = {
> > > + .can_preserve = vfio_pci_liveupdate_can_preserve,
> > > + .preserve = vfio_pci_liveupdate_preserve,
> > > + .unpreserve = vfio_pci_liveupdate_unpreserve,
> > > + .retrieve = vfio_pci_liveupdate_retrieve,
> > > + .finish = vfio_pci_liveupdate_finish,
> > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static struct liveupdate_file_handler vfio_pci_liveupdate_fh = {
> > > + .ops = &vfio_pci_liveupdate_file_ops,
> > > + .compatible = VFIO_PCI_LUO_FH_COMPATIBLE,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +int __init vfio_pci_liveupdate_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!liveupdate_enabled())
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + return liveupdate_register_file_handler(&vfio_pci_liveupdate_fh);
> > > +}
> >
> > liveupdate_register_file_handler() "pins" vfio-pci with a
> > try_module_get(). Since this is done in our module_init function and
> > unregister occurs in our module_exit function, rather than relative
> > to any actual device binding or usage, this means vfio-pci CANNOT be
> > unloaded. That seems bad. Thanks,
>
> Hmm... IIUC the concern here is about liveupdate policy if the user
> wants to unload a module which was previously marked for preservation?
>
> AFAICT, In such a case, the user is expected to close the LUO session FD,
> which "unpreserves" the FD. Finally, when rmmod is executed, the __exit
> (vfio_pci_cleanup) calls vfio_pci_liveupdate_cleanup() which ends up
> calling liveupdate_unregister_file_handler(), thereby dropping the ref
> held by the liveupdate orchestrator which allows the module to be
> unloaded.
>
Ohh wait, You're right, Alex. I just realized the __exit won't even be
reached because of the internal pin. The current implementation creates
a catch-22 where the module pins itself during init and can't reach the
unregister call in exit. I believe we should drop the ref when the user
closes the session FD? Additionally, should we move try_module_get out of
the global liveupdate_register_file_handler() and instead take the ref
only when a file is actually marked for preservation?
Thanks,
Praan
> I think we should document this policy somewhere or have a dev_warn to
> scream at the users when they try unloading the module without closing
> the session FD.
>
> Thanks,
> Praan
>
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > > +
> > > +void vfio_pci_liveupdate_cleanup(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!liveupdate_enabled())
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + liveupdate_unregister_file_handler(&vfio_pci_liveupdate_fh);
> > > +}
