On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 19:11:49 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 03:00:55PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:20:38 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> 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);
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Oh, righto, this is an oopsie!
>
> > > + 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,
>
> It could, but I thought it was less confusing this way due to how
> oddball the below is:
>
> > > +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);
> > > + }
>
> But either works, do want it switch in v2?
Yeah, I think the simpler version just adds to the confusion of what
this oddball logic does. It already handles all cases, up to and
including success, so let's give it more exercise by always using it.
Thanks,
Alex
