On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:17:41 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/2/2019 12:43 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-kernel-
> >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:12 AM
> >> To: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mdev: Send uevents around parent device registration
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:25:04 +0530
> >> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/2/2019 1:34 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 23:20:35 +0530
> >>>> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/1/2019 10:54 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:43:10 +0530
> >>>>>> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 7/1/2019 8:24 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This allows udev to trigger rules when a parent device is
> >>>>>>>> registered or unregistered from mdev.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> v2: Don't remove the dev_info(), Kirti requested they stay and
> >>>>>>>> removing them is only tangential to the goal of this change.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 8 ++++++++
> >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> >>>>>>>> b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c index ae23151442cb..7fb268136c62
> >>>>>>>> 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device *dev,
> >>>>>>>> const struct mdev_parent_ops *ops) {
> >>>>>>>> int ret;
> >>>>>>>> struct mdev_parent *parent;
> >>>>>>>> + char *env_string = "MDEV_STATE=registered";
> >>>>>>>> + char *envp[] = { env_string, NULL };
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> /* check for mandatory ops */
> >>>>>>>> if (!ops || !ops->create || !ops->remove ||
> >>>>>>>> !ops->supported_type_groups) @@ -197,6 +199,8 @@ int
> >> mdev_register_device(struct device *dev, const struct mdev_parent_ops *ops)
> >>>>>>>> mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> dev_info(dev, "MDEV: Registered\n");
> >>>>>>>> + kobject_uevent_env(&dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE, envp);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> add_dev_err:
> >>>>>>>> @@ -220,6 +224,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdev_register_device);
> >>>>>>>> void mdev_unregister_device(struct device *dev) {
> >>>>>>>> struct mdev_parent *parent;
> >>>>>>>> + char *env_string = "MDEV_STATE=unregistered";
> >>>>>>>> + char *envp[] = { env_string, NULL };
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mutex_lock(&parent_list_lock);
> >>>>>>>> parent = __find_parent_device(dev); @@ -243,6 +249,8 @@
> >> void
> >>>>>>>> mdev_unregister_device(struct device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> up_write(&parent->unreg_sem);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mdev_put_parent(parent);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + kobject_uevent_env(&dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE, envp);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mdev_put_parent() calls put_device(dev). If this is the last
> >>>>>>> instance holding device, then on put_device(dev) dev would get freed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This event should be before mdev_put_parent()
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you're suggesting the vendor driver is calling
> >>>>>> mdev_unregister_device() without a reference to the struct device
> >>>>>> that it's passing to unregister? Sounds bogus to me. We take a
> >>>>>> reference to the device so that it can't disappear out from under
> >>>>>> us, the caller cannot rely on our reference and the caller
> >>>>>> provided the struct device. Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Register uevent is sent after mdev holding reference to device,
> >>>>> then ideally, unregister path should be mirror of register path,
> >>>>> send uevent and then release the reference to device.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see the relevance here. We're marking an event, not
> >>>> unwinding state of the device from the registration process.
> >>>> Additionally, the event we're trying to mark is the completion of
> >>>> each process, so the notion that we need to mirror the ordering between
> >> the two is invalid.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2. I agree that vendor driver shouldn't call
> >>>>> mdev_unregister_device() without holding reference to device. But
> >>>>> to be on safer side, if ever such case occur, to avoid any
> >>>>> segmentation fault in kernel, better to send event before mdev release the
> >> reference to device.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know that get_device() and put_device() are GPL symbols and that's
> >>>> a bit of an issue, but I don't think we should be kludging the code
> >>>> for a vendor driver that might have problems with that. A) we're
> >>>> using the caller provided device for the uevent, B) we're only
> >>>> releasing our own reference to the device that was acquired during
> >>>> registration, the vendor driver must have other references,
> >>>
> >>> Are you going to assume that someone/vendor driver is always going to
> >>> do right thing?
> >>
> >> mdev is a kernel driver, we make reasonable assumptions that other drivers
> >> interact with it correctly.
> >>
> > That is right.
> > Vendor drivers must invoke mdev_register_device() and mdev_unregister_device() only once.
> > And it must have a valid reference to the device for which it is invoking it.
> > This is basic programming practice that a given driver has to follow.
> > mdev_register_device() has a loop to check. It needs to WARN_ON there if there are duplicate registration.
> > Similarly on mdev_unregister_device() to have WARN_ON if device is not found.
>
> If assumption is vendor driver is always going to do right way, then why
> need check for duplicate registration? vendor driver is always going to
> do it right way, right?
Are we intentionally misinterpreting "reasonable assumptions" here?
> > It was in my TODO list to submit those patches.
> > I was still thinking to that mdev_register_device() should return mdev_parent and mdev_unregister_device() should accept mdev_parent pointer, instead of WARN_ON on unregister().
> >
> >
> >>>> C) the parent device
> >>>> generally lives on a bus, with a vendor driver, there's an entire
> >>>> ecosystem of references to the device below mdev. Is this a
> >>>> paranoia request or are you really concerned that your PCI device suddenly
> >>>> disappears when mdev's reference to it disappears.
> >>>
> >>> mdev infrastructure is not always used by PCI devices. It is designed
> >>> to be generic, so that other devices (other than PCI devices) can also
> >>> use this framework.
> >>
> >> Obviously mdev is not PCI specific, I only mention it because I'm asking if you
> >> have a specific concern in mind. If you did, I'd assume it's related to a PCI
> >> backed vGPU.
>
> Its not always good to assume certain things.
It was only an attempt to relate to a specific issue that might concern
you.
> >> Any physical parent device of an mdev is likely to have some sort
> >> of bus infrastructure behind it holding references to the device (ie. a probe and
> >> release where an implicit reference is held between these points). A virtual
> >> device would be similar, it's created as part of a module init and destroyed as
> >> part of a module exit, where mdev registration would exist between these
> >> points.
> >>
> >>> If there is a assumption that user of mdev framework or vendor drivers
> >>> are always going to use mdev in right way, then there is no need for
> >>> mdev core to held reference of the device?
> >>> This is not a "paranoia request". This is more of a ideal scenario,
> >>> mdev should use device by holding its reference rather than assuming
> >>> (or relying on) someone else holding the reference of device.
> >>
> >> In fact, at one point Parav was proposing removing these references entirely,
> >> but Connie and I both felt uncomfortable about that. I think it's good practice
> >> that mdev indicates the use of the parent device by incrementing the reference
> >> count, with each child mdev device also taking a reference, but those
> >> references balance out within the mdev core. Their purpose is not to maintain
> >> the device for outside callers, nor should outside callers assume mdev's use of
> >> references to release their own. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that
> >> the caller should have a legitimate reference to the object it's providing to this
> >> function and therefore we should be able to use it after mdev's internal
> >> references are balanced out. Thanks,
> >>
>
> I'm not fully convinced with what is the advantage of sending uevent
> after releasing reference to device or disadvantage of sending uevent
> before releasing reference to device.
If mdev-core still holds a reference to the device, is it fully
unregistered? Why not send the uevent at the point where the
notification is actually true?
> Still if you want to go ahead with this change, please add a check or
> assert if (dev != NULL) and add an comment highlighting the assumption.
If CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE is enabled then the deletion of the
kobject can occur at some random delay after the last reference is
removed via a workqueue, so such a test would only introduce a false
sense of security for an issue that should not exist anyway. Thanks,
Alex
