On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:04:19 +0800
Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 12:10 PM, Jike Song wrote:
> > On 11/10/2016 01:53 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:49:32 +0800
> >> Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/08/2016 04:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>> On 07/11/2016 19:28, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Can the reference become invalid?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, this is guaranteed by virt/kvm/vfio.c + the udata.lock mutex (which
> >>>>>> probably should be renamed...).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The caller gets a reference to kvm, but there's no guarantee that the
> >>>>> association of that kvm reference to the group stays valid. Once we're
> >>>>> outside of that mutex, we might as well consider that kvm:group
> >>>>> association stale.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The caller may still hold
> >>>>>>> a kvm references, but couldn't the group be detached from one kvm
> >>>>>>> instance and re-attached to another?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can this be handled by the vendor driver? Does it get a callback when
> >>>>>> it's detached from a KVM instance?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only release callback through vfio is when the user closes the
> >>>>> device, the code in this series is the full extent of vfio awareness of
> >>>>> kvm. Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe there should be an mdev callback at the point of association and
> >>>> deassociation between VFIO and KVM. Then the vendor driver can just use
> >>>> the same mutex for association, deassociation and usage. I'm not even
> >>>> sure that these patches are necessary once you have that callback.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Alex & Paolo,
> >>>
> >>> So I cooked another draft version of this, there is no kvm pointer saved
> >>> in vfio_group in this version, and notifier will be called on attach/detach,
> >>> please kindly have a look :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>> index ed2361e4..20b5da9 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> >>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >>> #include <linux/vfio.h>
> >>> #include <linux/wait.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> >>>
> >>> #define DRIVER_VERSION "0.3"
> >>> #define DRIVER_AUTHOR "Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>"
> >>> @@ -86,6 +87,10 @@ struct vfio_group {
> >>> struct mutex unbound_lock;
> >>> atomic_t opened;
> >>> bool noiommu;
> >>> + struct {
> >>> + struct mutex lock;
> >>> + struct blocking_notifier_head notifier;
> >>> + } udata;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> struct vfio_device {
> >>> @@ -333,6 +338,7 @@ static struct vfio_group *vfio_create_group(struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> >>> mutex_init(&group->device_lock);
> >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&group->unbound_list);
> >>> mutex_init(&group->unbound_lock);
> >>> + mutex_init(&group->udata.lock);
> >>> atomic_set(&group->container_users, 0);
> >>> atomic_set(&group->opened, 0);
> >>> group->iommu_group = iommu_group;
> >>> @@ -414,10 +420,11 @@ static void vfio_group_release(struct kref *kref)
> >>> iommu_group_put(iommu_group);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -static void vfio_group_put(struct vfio_group *group)
> >>> +void vfio_group_put(struct vfio_group *group)
> >>> {
> >>> kref_put_mutex(&group->kref, vfio_group_release, &vfio.group_lock);
> >>> }
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_group_put);
> >>>
> >>> /* Assume group_lock or group reference is held */
> >>> static void vfio_group_get(struct vfio_group *group)
> >>> @@ -480,7 +487,7 @@ static struct vfio_group *vfio_group_get_from_minor(int minor)
> >>> return group;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -static struct vfio_group *vfio_group_get_from_dev(struct device *dev)
> >>> +struct vfio_group *vfio_group_get_from_dev(struct device *dev)
> >>> {
> >>> struct iommu_group *iommu_group;
> >>> struct vfio_group *group;
> >>> @@ -494,6 +501,7 @@ static struct vfio_group *vfio_group_get_from_dev(struct device *dev)
> >>>
> >>> return group;
> >>> }
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_group_get_from_dev);
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>> * Device objects - create, release, get, put, search
> >>> @@ -1745,6 +1753,44 @@ long vfio_external_check_extension(struct vfio_group *group, unsigned long arg)
> >>> }
> >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_external_check_extension);
> >>>
> >>> +int vfio_group_register_notifier(struct vfio_group *group, struct notifier_block *nb)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return blocking_notifier_chain_register(&group->udata.notifier, nb);
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_group_register_notifier);
> >>> +
> >>> +int vfio_group_unregister_notifier(struct vfio_group *group, struct notifier_block *nb)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return blocking_notifier_chain_unregister(&group->udata.notifier, nb);
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_group_unregister_notifier);
> >>
> >> Kirti is already adding vfio_register_notifier &
> >> vfio_unregister_notifier, these are not exclusive to the iommu, I
> >> clarified that in my question that IOVA range invalidation is just one
> >> aspect of what that notifier might be used for. The mdev framework
> >> also automatically registers and unregisters that notifier around
> >> open/release. So, I don't think we want a new notifier, we just want
> >> vfio.c to also consume that notifier.
> >
> > Unfortunately the kvm:group attaching happens before device opening,
> > so registering the notifier in open() is not functional: the event
> > has disappeared before we start watching it.
> >
> > A possible workaround is, register the notifier in create() instead of
> > open(). That should be functional, but will cause another issue: being able
> > to register a notifier means we have a vfio-group reference, when to put
> > that reference? putting it in remove() is not a good idea since a device
> > might be open/release multiple times between create/remove, holding the ref
> > until removal breaks it; putting it in release() is obviously not a
> > good idea neither.
> >
> > IOW, having the notifiers there must be some dirty work in vendor
> > driver to work around the issue above :(
> >
> >> So I think this patch needs a few components that build on what Kirti
> >> has, 1) we add a blocking_notifier_head per vfio_group and have
> >> vfio_{un}regsiter_notifier add and remove that notifier to the group
> >> chain, 2) we create a vfio_group_notify() function that the kvm-vfio
> >> pseudo device can call via symbol_get, 3) Have kvm-vfio call
> >> vfio_group_notify() with VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM where the data is a
> >> pointer to the struct kvm (or NULL to unset, we don't need separate set
> >> vs unset notifiers). Does that work? Thanks,
> >
> > Yes, it works better than the original form of below patch.
> > vfio side doesn't store any data, nor introduce any lock, only a callback
> > for kvm to use.
> >
>
> To make my reply clearer: the notifier can work without two separate
> set/unset, can be combined with Kirti's iommu notifier, however, the problem
> of being too late to register from open() still exists, and I still find it
> difficult to work around.
Ok, so it's a little bit ugly, but kvm-vfio can tell vfio about struct
kvm with a vfio_group_set_kvm() callback that it uses via symbol get,
using the real struct kvm pointer or NULL to unset. vfio caches this
on the vfio_group. When a notifier is registered, it replays the event
through the notifier. Any updates while a notifier is connected are
both cached and immediately replayed through the notifier. So the
vendor driver to vfio communication channel is the same, but the vfio
to kvm-vfio involves some buffering. Does that work? Thanks,
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
