On 11/18/2016 12:22 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:31:07 +0800
> Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2016 02:03 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:24:59 +0800
>>> Jike Song <jike.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2016 03:45 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps calling it a filter is not correct, I was thinking that a
>>>>> vendor driver would register the notifier with a set of required
>>>>> events. The driver would need to handle/ignore additional events
>>>>> outside of the required mask. There are certainly some complications
>>>>> to this model though that I hadn't thought all the way through until
>>>>> now. For instance what if we add event XYZ in the future and the
>>>>> vendor driver adds this to their required mask. If we run that on an
>>>>> older kernel where the vfio infrastructure doesn't know about that
>>>>> event, the vendor driver needs to fail, or at least know that event is
>>>>> not supported and retry with a set of supported events.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's another problem with my proposal too, we can't put a single
>>>>> notifier_block on multiple notifier_block heads, that just doesn't
>>>>> work. So we probably need to separate a group notifier from an iommu
>>>>> notifier, the vendor driver will need to register for each.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we end up with something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> int vfio_register_notifier(struct device *dev,
>>>>> vfio_notify_type_t type,
>>>>> unsigned long *required_events,
>>>>> struct notifier_block *nb);
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef unsigned short vfio_notify_type_t;
>>>>> enum vfio_notify_type {
>>>>> VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY = (__force vfio_notify_type_t)0,
>>>>> VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY = (__force vfio_notify_type_t)1,
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> (stealing this from pci_dev_flags_t, hope it works)
>>>>>
>>>>> A VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY would add the notifier_block to the vfio_group, a
>>>>> VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY would add it to vfio_iommu. Each would have their
>>>>> own unique set of events and each would compare their supported events
>>>>> to the required events by the caller. Supported events would be
>>>>> cleared from the callers required_events arg. If required_events still
>>>>> has bits set, the notifier_block is not registered, an error is
>>>>> returned, and the caller can identify the unsupported events by the
>>>>> remaining bits in the required_events arg. Can that work? Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Let me summarize the discussion:
>>>>
>>>> - There should be 2 notifier heads, one in vfio_iommu another in vfio_group;
>>>> - vfio_{un}register_notifier() has the type specified in parameter
>>>> - In vfio_register_notifier, maybe:
>>>>
>>>> static vfio_iommu_register_notifier() {..}
>>>> static vfio_group_register_notifier() {..}
>>>> int vfio_register_notififer(type..
>>>> {
>>>> if (type == VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY)
>>>> return vfio_iommu_register_notifier();
>>>> if (type == VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY)
>>>> return vfio_group_register_notifier();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's more, if we still want registration to be done in mdev framework,
>>>> we should change parent_ops:
>>>>
>>>> - rename 'notifier' to 'iommu_notifier'
>>>> - add "group_notifier"
>>>> - Add a group_events and a iommu_events to indicate what events vendor is
>>>> interested in, respectively
>>>>
>>>> or otherwise don't touch it from mdev framework at all?
>>>
>>> I think we should remove the notifier from the mdev framework and have
>>> the vendor drivers call vfio_{un}register_notifier() directly. Note:
>>>
>>> - vfio_group_release() should be modified to remove any notifier
>>> blocks remaining to prevent a stale call chain for the next user.
>>
>> vfio_group_release calls vfio_group_unlock_and_free, which in turn calls
>> kfree(group), so I guess a WARN_ON(group->notifier.head) before kfree
>> is enough?
>
> Sorry, vfio_group_fops_release() is the code where I was thinking we
> should unregister any notifiers. The group will still exist after
> that. I was thinking we do not need to WARN_ON if the vendor driver
> doesn't de-populate the notifier list on the group because the group is
> tied to the device. On the other hand if the vendor driver registers
> on device open, a device could be opened and closed multiple times
> within the same open instance of the group, so we could end up with
> duplicate call chain entries if we take that approach. What do you
> think, should we require the vendor driver to unregister the group
> notifier on device release and therefore WARN_ON if any remain in
> vfio_group_fops_release()? This is at least consistent with what we
> must require for the iommu notifier, so I tend to lean that way.
I agree, a WARN_ON() is needed in vfio_group_fops_release, in case of
any possible usage violation from vendor drivers. Will add that in next
version :)
--
Thanks,
Jike
>>> - vfio_sanity_check_pfn_list() should be modified to WARN_ON remaining
>>> notifier blocks on the vfio_iommu (ie. vendor drivers will need to
>>> actively remove iommu notifiers since the vfio_iommu can persist
>>> beyond the attachment of the mdev group, the WARN_ON will promote a
>>> proactive approach to surfacing such issues).
>>
>> I guess Kirti will prefer to pick up this? if not I also can do it :-)
>>
>>> I'd like to get Kirti's current series in linux-next ASAP, so please
>>> submit a follow-on series to make these changes. I hope we can get
>>> that finalized and added on top of Kirti's series before the v4.10
>>> merge window opens. Thanks,
>>
>> Yes, I'll send out the follow-on series ASAP, since we also have KVMGT
>> depending on it to get notified by vfio...
>
> 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
