On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:18:12AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Jason Gunthorpe jgg@nvidia.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 1:25 AM
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:23PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
+/**
- iommufd_device_pasid_detach - Disconnect a {device, pasid} to an
iommu_domain
- @idev: device to detach
- @pasid: pasid to detach
- Undo iommufd_device_pasid_attach(). This disconnects the idev/pasid
from
- the previously attached pt_id.
- */
+void iommufd_device_pasid_detach(struct iommufd_device *idev, u32
pasid)
+{
- struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt;
- hwpt = xa_load(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid);
- if (!hwpt)
return;- xa_erase(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid);
- iommu_detach_device_pasid(hwpt->domain, idev->dev, pasid);
- iommufd_hw_pagetable_put(idev->ictx, hwpt);
+}
None of this xarray stuff looks locked properly
I had an impression from past discussions that the caller should not race attach/detach/replace on same device or pasid, otherwise it is already a problem in a higher level.
I thought that was just at the iommu layer? We want VFIO to do the same? Then why do we need the dual xarrays?
Still, it looks really wrong to have code like this, we don't need to - it can be locked properly, it isn't a performance path..
and the original intention of the group lock was to ensure all devices in the group have a same view. Not exactly to guard concurrent attach/detach.
We don't have a group lock here, this is in iommufd.
Use the xarray lock..
eg
hwpt = xa_erase(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid); if (WARN_ON(!hwpt)) return
xa_erase is atomic.
Jason